1920-06-17

NATURALIZATION ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 184 to revive and amend the Naturalization Act, 1914.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The House will remember that in connection with the Franchise Act considerable discussion arose with regard to the effect of certain provisions of the Naturalization Act' of 1919-provisions which excluded the naturalizing of persons of former enemy alien nationality for a period of ten years following the war. The discussion proceeded upon the understanding-shared in, I think I am safe in saying, all round-that the British legislation of 1918 had so operated as to make it necessary, if we were to preserve a uniformity between our legislation and the British naturalization legislation, that we should adopt this provision making it impossible to naturalize for the period of ten years the class of aliens which I have mentioned. In connection with that discussion I ventured to express a very strong hope that it would be found possible to come to such an understanding as would cause to disappear the supposed necessity of our adopting that absolutely prohibitive legislation for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the naturalization legislation. I think that in many quarters the thought was entertained, -and, indeed, was expressed-that I was over,sanguine in that regard; that I entertained an excess of hopefulness which some hon. gentlemen were disposed to pardon me for by reason of my youth. I am glad to say that I was not over-sanguine; that it is possible for us to so modify the provisions referred to as to remove the impossibility during the period of time in question of naturalizing the class mentioned, without causing our legislation not to be uniform with that of the United Kingdom upon the subject of Imperial naturalization. One of

the purposes of this Bill is not to abolish entirely the provision but to make it possible to grant certificates of naturalization to persons of proved loyalty who before the passage of the Act had resided in Canada for a period of ten years. The misunderstanding with regard to the effect of the British naturalization disappeared upon careful examination [DOT] of the legislation. J may say that the basis of the hopefulness I expressed was my conviction that there must be a misunderstanding either on the other side or on this side. We were all under the impression that the misunderstanding had occurred over there, and that consequently their legislation produced the effect which I have mentioned. As I have said, however, a more careful examination of their legislation makes it clear that we have to admit that the misunderstanding was on the part of the draftsmen upon this side who framed the legislation under the belief that this clause was an essential part of what I may describe as the Imperial Naturalization Act. That view, which I am now expressing, is concurred in by the British authorities, and, in fact, a careful examination of the statute makes it clear that that is correct. The British Parliament, in making the particular enactment to which I have referred, was careful, inasmuch as there was no consultation with the Dominions on the subject, to make it, not as an enactment to form part of the Imperial Naturalization Act of 1914, but as a substantial enactment in the United Kingdom. That has left us our liberty in the matter. I felt strongly convinced that there was some misunderstanding, inasmuch as with regard to maintaining the uniformity of Imperial naturalization legislation, the matter is not at all one of the British Parliament passing legislation and then we being in a position where we must pass it, but the matter is one of previous consultation as to what legislation the respective Governments will be willing to introduce,, and in this latter legislation the British Government was careful to exclude, as forming part of the Act of 1914, any amendment, with regard to which there had not been previous consultation. It is well just to mention that, because it is a misapprehension to suppose, as some hon. gentlemen seem to think, that this was a matter of legislation imposed upon us by the Act of the British Parliament. The Act of 1914 itself was an Act passed in virtue of an agreement and was ' actually passed by this Parliament beford it was passed by the British Parliament.
, I should add that, for the purpose of clearness, it has been thought desirable that we should remodel the form of the Act as it was passed last year. Last year the Act of 1914 was entirely repealed and reenacted with certain modifications, among them being the particular one that I have mentioned. It seems to us desirable that we should keep clear by themselves the provisions of the Act of 1914 and any amendments that may be made to it, that is the Act the uniformity of which we must maintain, and deal separately, as the British Parliament did, with other provisions not forming part of it. For that purpose this present Bill repeals the Act of 1919, revives the Act of 1914, inserting in it those amendments which properly form part of it and are necessary for maintaining uniformity between our Act of 1914 and the British Act of 1914, and then enacting such provisions as form no part of it as substantial provisions standing by themselves, and among which is the provision that I have just mentioned which will make it possible, not to do away with the ten-year requirements generally, but, in meritorious cases, for persons of former alien enemy nationality who have already resided ten years in this country, to be naturalized before the expiry of the ten-year period from the termination of the war as provided in the Act of 1919.
. Mr. EULEE: I should like to know whether in the new Bill which the minister is introducing, he includes a provision for the personal naturalization of women as well as men. I think that would be desirable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a matter which was dealt with in the original Act of 1914, the Act that was then decided upon. If we should depart from the agreement then reached which was embodied in both the British and our legislation upon that subject, we would then be making in the provisions of the original Act a distinction which would differentiate our legislation, and just as the British -Government and parliament did not think it proper to modify that Act without consultation with the other Dominions, if we modify it without their concurrence we would be 'departing from 'uniformity. Therefore, there is not contained, in the present Bill a provision for a separate and distinct naturalization on the part of married women, of whom I understand the hon. member is speaking.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and. Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Question® answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Honourable the Minister of Trade and Commerce received the following resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Vancouver, B.C., June 9, 1920 :-
Whereas, the Franco-Canadian Customs Tariff Convention will terminate about June 19, 1920, and
Whereas, it is highly desirable that the friendly trade relations between France and Canada should be improved by a new Customs Convention whereby direct shipping may be promoted and French markets opened which, owing to the high general Customs duties of France would otherwise remain closed against numerous Canadian products, both agricultural and manufacturing, and on the other hand desirable markets may be opened in Canada for various French products not made or produced in Canada,
Therefore be it resolved, that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in annual meeting assembled in Vancouver on June 9,	1920,
earnestly petition the Dominion Government to negotiate a new Franco-Canadian Customs Tariff Convention, as soon as conditions become opportune.
2.	What action does the honourable minister intend to take in the matter?
Rt, Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:
1.	The resolution referred to has been received.
2.	I have already intimated to the House that the Canadian Government had signified to the French Government its willingness to enter into negotiations for another commercial arrangement at an opportune time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) it was ordered that to-morrow the House do go into committee to consider a resolution to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statute® of 1912.

Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: 
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: If the Prime Minister
can give us a definite assurance that the whole legislative programme of the Government has been brought down and that we need expect nothing further, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will be glad to do anything to help bring the work of the session to a speedy termination.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a Bill, entirely non-controversial, I think, for the purpose of extending the powers now enjoyed by the boards of trade throughout the country. The Government also have under consideration the question of continuing the present authority for wheat control. Outside of that, I do not recall any other legislation that is in contemplation, but I shall consult my colleagues.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU:: Pensions?


Robert Laird Borden: I except, of
course, matters that are already before the House. We shall have to deal with the report of any Committee of the House. I thought my hon. friend's question alluded to measures to be brought down by the Government upon its own initiative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my right hon. friend inform us when we may expect the balance of the Supplementary Estimates?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister
of Finance has been very busily engaged all morning, and is still engaged on the same matter. Therefore, he is not in his seat at the moment. As soon as he comes I shall mention to him the inquiry my hon. friend has made, which is a very reasonable one, and I shall ash him to acquaint my hon. friend and the House generally as to the date when we may expect the further Supplementary Estimates. Speaking for myself, we shall use the utmost possible expedition in bringing them down. Some of the ministers have been very much engaged with matters of public business apart from the business of the House, and unfortunately the result has been that the Supplementary Estimates have not been brought down at as early a date as we had hoped, or indeed at as early a date as they should have been brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rt, Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister): I beg to lay on the table of the House an Order in Council accepting the resignation of Mr. W. F. O'Connor as a Commissioner of the Board of Commerce ot Canada, to take effect on the 30th day of June, 1920. In his letter of resignation Mr. O'Connor states that he is about to engage in other activities in the practice of his profession, and that he will be pleased to have his resignation take effect at any time when it seems most advisable, but that he would suggest the postponing of its acceptance until the 30th day of June in order that some pending matters might in the meantime be disposed of.
Might I say further as to what will be done with the Board of Commerce in the immediate future, that I expect to have a conference to-day, if possible, with Mr. Murdock. He is -the only Commissioner remaining since the resignation of Judge Robson and that which has just been accomplished by the Order in Council now laid on the table of the House.
I should also mention to the House this important consideration. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has been made public in the press, the validity of the Act has been left open to serious doubt. Three judges of the Court have expressed the opinion that it is constitutional, and three judges have expressed precisely the contrary opinion. Under these circumstances it seems most desirable that the question of law involved should be set at rest. Therefore, the Minister of Justice has been requested to prepare and proceed with an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in order that the power of this Parliament in the premises may be precisely determined. There is some hope that the application for special leave, which will be necessary, may be made at the siftings of the Judicial Committee which will commence some time next month, as I understand. It is also hoped that upon the argument of that motion the question of constitutionality might in effect be determined. If that should prove to be the case, the doubt which now rests upon the validity Of the Act will be removed one way or the other, and the Government will be in a better position than at present to determine its policy as to the future in this regard.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask the Prime Minister if all the constitutional questions involved will be submitted to the Judicial Committee. There were two points, I understand, before the Supreme Court. Is there to be an appeal as to both?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We shall seek by the appeal to
obtain the opinion of the Privy Council upon all constitutional questions which arise. It is not exactly a judgment that we are faced wilth, but a stated case upon which different opinions have been given. We shall seek to get opinion upon any constitutional question that arises.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While this
question of constitutionality is being determined, will Mr. Murdock continue to act as commissioner?


Robert Laird Borden: I thought I had explained to my hon. friend in speaking of this matter at first, Ithat I proposed to have a conference to-day with Mr. Murdock at which the question propounded by my hon. friend will be considered. Later on, before the end of the session, I hope, I may be able to make some announcement to the House with regard to that.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: I beg to lay on the Table a return to an Order of the House dated March 19, 1920, showing a copy of the correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and Ithe Prime Minister of Great Britain under authority of a resolution of the Imperial War Cabinet of July 30, 1918, the order in question having been made upon the motion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).



THE -GOAL SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) desires to move the adjournment of the House to-day for the purpose of discussing a question which he has mentioned to me.

It seems that there is some question under the rules as to his right Ito take that course, but as the matter is one upon which it is desirable to have a public statement made, I shall move the House into Committee of Supply in order that my hon. friend may have the opportunity which he otherwise would not have. I therefore beg to move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There are two difficulties in conection with the motion. In the first place the motion for the House to go into Committee .of Supply can under the rules, only be made by unanimous consent this being Thursday. The difficulty with respect to bringing this matter up on a motion to adjourn the House is not that it is not a matter that comes properly within the sphere of rule 39. I think it does, but the question before the Chair is this-


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: Will you kindly read my motion, Sir.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion which the
hon. member desires to move is:
-the adjournment ot the House for the purpose of discussing a matter or urgent public importance, namely, the impending coal shortage threatening to dislocate certain industries and to cause serious hardship in the homes of the Canadian people.
There is a well established rule that the same subject cannot be debated twice in the same session, and I find that on March 10, 1920, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) moved a resolution reading in part as follows:
And Whereas the fuel question has become an acute one in many parts of the country it is desirable, etc., etc.
The subject there was specifically discussed and dealt with by the House. Furthermore, with regard to Bill No. 153 respecting the Director of Coal Operations, although the subject was perhaps not properly germane to the discussion on the second reading, the Chair purposely allowed the debate to be broadened in order that the Government's intention might be brought before the House in regard to the possible fuel shortage. The sole question, therefore, is on the point of the subject having been debated at a time prior to this motion.


Mr. BURNHAM:: It was agreed by the resolution that a day should be appointed to take up the matters.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the rules of the House, there could not be such an agreement as the motion is a contradiction in terms; because the very fact that the House had already discussed the subject would preclude its being discussed again at this session. However, I think that the situation might be met, in view of the urgency of the matter, if the House gave its unanimous consent that the hon. member should proceed as he desires. It is, of course, my duty to see that the rules of the House are observed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I will not question your ruling. I bow to your decision, Sir, and will accept the offer of my right hon. friend. Besides, I wish to state at once that I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the House as I am just as anxious as any one else to see the approach of prorogation. I shall simply call the attention of the Government to a very menacing feature of the . coal situation, I promise that I will not be long.


Robert Laird Borden: As both motions require unanimous consent we might as well take the motion to a'djourn the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Lemieux seconded by Mr. McKenzie, moves the adjournment of the House under Rule 39 "for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the impending coal shortage threatening to dislocate certain industries and to cause serious hardship in the homes of the Canadian people.''
As I have indicated, this motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to make the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
The House gave unanimous consent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I appreciate the unanimous consent given by the House and will forthwith reciprocate by informing my fellow members that I will not exceed ten minutes. All I desire to know is what is the policy of the Government in this matter. T am glad to find that both the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) and your honour admit that the situation is most acute, and that in Central Canada, in the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we are threatened with a dislocation of some of our most import-

ant industries. And although we are at present passing through a wave of heat we must think of what will happen next winter if we have no coal in our homes. This morning I was speaking with one or two coal dealers in the city of Ottawa and they informed me that the situation was undoubtedly very critical. They said that the price of coal to-day was between $15 and $16 per ton and they could not guarantee that next week it would not be $17. There is no coal, and it is only right that the attention of the Government should be directed to this very serious situation. It is a most urgent matter that affects the great industrial centres of Ontario and Quebec. The other day, whilst we were discussing the appointment of a Coal Director in the West -and I must say that on that question I did not totally agree with the stand taken by my friends on this side of the 'House, because I believe that sometimes it is perhaps better to ignore certain time-honoured principles in order to prevent people from freezing-some statements were made on that occasion to which I shall briefly refer. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. 'Currie), for instance, stated that in the city of Toronto the gas company had a supply of coal for two weeks only; and my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) also made a statement to the effect that the situation in Ontario was certainly most acute. I stated that the gas company in Montreal was in the same predicament as the gas company in Toronto.


John Hampden Burnham: Same in Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The situation is one that affects the consumers of gas in the city of Montreal and all large centres. If hon. members will refer to the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, June 15, they will find that the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company is before the Public Utilities Commission at the present time with a view to increase its rate; and evidence as given by the managers and the engineers cuf the company, supported by the fuel agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is reported in that paper. I quote the following:
The reason for this state of affairs Mr. Norris explained was found in additional burdens laid upon the company in their bills for wages and material, principally coal and oil, and in other disadvantages arising from the difficulty of securing coal to meet requirements.
Further on it says:
Owing to difficulty in getting orders filled the quantity of coal brought in since the opening of navigation was less than one half wrhat it had
been in past years. All these things, he said, were a handicap on the operations of the company.
The article states further:
Mr. Thomas Britt, general fuel agent of the C.P.R., was also called by Mr. Montgomery. He said that he was a buyer of coal for the Canadian Pacific railway and at the present time had orders to buy between three and four million tons of bituminous coal, and was lucky to be able to get as much as a single carload a day. In fact, in the Pittsburg district whole-trainloads were corraled by order of the railroads and some of the railroads, such as the Baltimore and Ohio, stated to the mine operators. "No cars, no coal. If you get cars, you must give us coal."
The representative of the Ottawa Gas Company, Mir. Dion, made .similar statements. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we have not the available quantity of coal for the gas companies of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, and if we cannot advantageously secure a coal supply from the western and eastern mines, where .shall we in Central Canada get our coal from? I am informed on the best authority, and my hon. friend the Minister oif Interior (Mir. Meighen) knows this statement to be perfectly true, that some of the western coal mines of Canada to-day are shipping their coal to the western States and England is getting shipments of coal from Nova Scotia. In other words Canada-to use what has long been regarded as merely a literary expression-is sending coal to Newcastle.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Free imports.


Rodolphe Lemieux: England, France and Holland and other European countries have large orders with the coal mines of the East to the detriment of Central Canada. I will not give the figures to the House, but I could show that the production of coal today has fallen short in all parts oif the world, especially in England. We all know the cause of this shortage-.as we know why in France and Canada and in the United States there is a shortage. Mr. Speaker, we depend entirely in Central Canada on Pennsylvania coal and we hardly can get it to-day.
I have alluded to the difficulties of the gas companies of Montreal, Ottawa 'and Toronto. The price of gas Hvill go up; or it may not go up alt all because if we have no coal there hvill be ino gas. Many of the large industries are threatened wd'th absolute dislocation. I hear ithait certain companies in Ottawa may not operate in a week's time if they do not get their coal Supply. But even in the United States the gas com-



panies are doing exactly what .the gas companies of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa are doing and yet they are in the very country where coal can be had under ordinary circumstances cheaply and conveniently. 1 hold in imy band a copy of Chemical .and Metallurgical and Engineering, a, very high class review, and I read in it under date of the 9th June:
The emergency committee and members of the American Gas Association met Wednesday, May 26, in the Hotel Pennsylvania to consider ways and means to combat the shortage of basic raw material used in the manufacture of gas. With the great scarcity of coal, coke and gas oil the situation looks discouraging for the consumers as well as the manufacturers. Some of the plants

In the United States
-have barely enough for present operations and all are wondering whether or not they will be able to operate during the coming winter.
Philip H. Gadsden, chairman of the emergency committee,-
Note that in the United States they have, o:n this very vital question, already appointed emergency committees-
-said that the most important question was "how to keep the plants functioning to the- consumer". With supplies of coal .practically exhausted and supply of gas oil entirely inadequate for the purpose for which it is used, due largely to the increased demands for gasoline and kerosene, a most serious and critical situation confronts the gas manufacturers.
They have appointed this emergency committee to take the proper means to combat this shortage. I have said that I would not sipeak more than ten minutes. I simply rise this afternoon.-and I am in. earnest in doing so-to ask the Government what, under the circumstances, is their policy. What is the remedy that the Government proposes in order to prevent a panic in Canada next fall? Some people say that you should use the ships now, that you have the merchant marine. We .should look after our own people first. Why should not these .ships be utilized in transporting coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal and to Quebec making off 'these two ports the distributing centres for central Canada? On the other hand would it not 'be possible to adopt some special temporary rates on the railway *systems in order to facilitate and cheapen the transportation off coal from Western Canada? I do. mot know whether that is feasible, but ait all events we have the right to expect that the Government realizes the seriousness off the situation and the danger which if portends. I hope the fight horn, gentleman will be able to give 'the House

and the country full information on the subject. I have not exceeded my ten minutes.
Rt, Hon. Sir ROBERT BORBEN (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, let me, in the first place inform my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) that several weeks ago the conditions to which he ha.s referred were taken into consideration by the Government and I think everything that is practicable has been done up to the present time. Representations were made to -us by several hon. members on this side of the House and we had representations from other sources. About four weeks ago a sub-committee of Council was .appointed consisting of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) and my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ro'bfcrtson) who have been actively engaged ever since in examining the situation and taking such measures as seemed to them practicable for the purpose of alleviating .unfortunate conditions. On the very day after their appointment they summoned representatives of all the railways off Canada, they summoned representatives off some of the important industries, and they endeavoured to obtain full and accurate information in regard to the situation. Shortly thereafter they succeeded, by negotiation with the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, in .securing the services of Mr. Spencer, the chief traffic officer of that board, a very highly experienced and 'capable man, He has spent a good deal of his time since in the United .States examining the situation there and endeavouring to expedite the movement of coal to this country 'as far an possible and he has kept us fully informed from time to time 'as to the actual eondtions. In addition to that we have had Mr. Mahoney the remaining .representative of the old War Trade 'Board who has his residence in Washington (and who discharges his duties there. We have had him very actively engaged in doing What he could to assist the situation, *always in teo-operation with Mr. Spencer and with the ministers to whom I have *alluded. I should add in that .regard that Mr. Mahoney acted under Mr. Magrath while Mr. Magrath was fuel controller and he has a very thorough and comprehensive acquaintance with conditions in the United States in so far as -they apply to the coal situation.
Let us .consider for a moment just. What the situation is. My hon. friend speaks of the desirability o.f having ships put on the route between Sydney and other Cape

Breton, ports and Montreal. That was dtone several weeks ago and I believe that three of the Government steamers have been engaged in the work of transportation since then. We are confronted with the difficulty that there is an enormous demand for bunkering ships plyihg to and fro across the Atlantic; and hon. gentlemen, I hope, will realize that it would he a seriouB thing for us, without the gravest consideration, * to undertake any action which would prevent these 'ships from getting coal. I shall come to 'the exportation of coal from this country to the United States a little later.
The House will hear in mind, I hope, that during the past two or three weeks the difficulty has been one of transportation rather than of coal supply, as I understand it. The .switchmen's strike and other strikes of a like character in the United States have greatly interfered with the forwarding of coal which was destined for this country. For that and many other reasons it W'as that Mr. Spencer, a very able and experienced traffic man, was selected ;to co-operate with the ministers Who had charge of this matter. The situation at present, I believe, is this: During the month of June, and possibly the	last week 'in M'ay,	coal Wasnot moved very rapidly by reason of	the	transportation	difficulties,
but I am informed by the Minister of Labour an t by the Minister of Railways that within the past week the conditions have very greatly improved, and that coal is coming forward in normal quantities at the present time.
When one comes to look at the situation as it was up to. the 31st of May, including the period to which I have just alluded, it is not so alarming as the remarks of my hon. friend would indicate. From January 1 to May 31, 1919, the importation of anthracite coal was 1,589,965 tons. In the corresponding period this year, that is to say, from January 1 to May 31, 1920, the importation of anthracite coal was 1,695,950 tons or an increase of 106,000 tons. With respect to bituminous coal the importation during the first four months of 1919, that is to say, from January 1 to May 31 of that year, was 3,441,676 tons. During the corresponding period of this year, that is to say, for the four months up to the 31st May, 1920, the importation of bituminous coal was 3,498,902 tons, or an excess of nearly 60,000 tons over th*e corresponding period in 1919. The total importations during the year 1919 were as follows:
234i
Anthracite coal	 2,486,141 tons
Bituminous coal	6,005,245	"
So the hon. gentleman will see that during the period to which I have alluded in 1920 the proportion of coal' that .we succeeded in bringing in was a very respectable proportion indeed.
I 'believe there were produced in Canada last year 16,934,561 tons of coal, the production 'by provinces being as follows:
Tons.
Nova Scotia	 5,790,196
New Brunswick	 166,377
Saskatchewan	 3179,347
Alberta	 4,9o'0',310
British Columbia	 5,648,331
We were somewhat alarmed-somewhat disturbed at least-by reports that 'came to us as to the enormous amount of coal that had been exported in the early part of this year to European countries, and very strong representations were made to the effect that our own industries would suffer very greatly if this were permitted to continue. Throughout my observations I am taking the statements that have been furnished me by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Railways, who, I understand, made the necessary investigation to verify these figures. From these statements I find that to the 1st of June, 1920, there have been exported from Nova Scotia during the present year 158,000 tons. I believe that went to European countries. From Alberta and British Columbia there is ordinarily an exportation of about 2,600 tons of coal per day to the United States; but if the hon. gentleman suggests we should stop that exportation he must hear in mind that it will be difficult for a considerable portion of that coal to obtain another available market. More .than that, he must remember that in Eastern Canada we are dependent on the United States as our source of supply for anthracite coal and for a very considerable proportion of our supply of bituminous coal. In this connection I desire to bear tribute to the fine spirit of friendly and neighbourly co-operation which has been manifested toward the people of this country by the Government and the officials of the United States during the past two or three years when matters were somewhat urgent with us so far as coal supplies were concerned. Therefore we must remember that when the United States of America gives that very friendly and just consideration to us we must be inspired by the same spirit of sympathy and good-will to them in respect to that

supply of our western coal which goes to their country.
3 p.m. Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has touched upon some very interesting questions as to the source from which we shall obtain our future coal supply. I think it will ibe necessary for this Government-or any government in this country -in the future to look that question pretty squarely in the face. It is highly probable that demands upon the coal reserves of the United States in the future increasing as their population increases and as their industries still more greatly develop, may make it necessary for the people of that country to look to the future and to consider to what extent they must conserve their supply. In doing that I am absolutely confident that they would give every reasonable consideration within their power to the necessities of this country. But we have enormous supplies of coal in Canada and the difficulty-the sole difficulty-is the question of transportation over the enormous area of the Dominion. That is the whole difficulty. We have great coal supplies on the Atlantic seaboard in the East, enormous supplies on the Pacific seaboard in the West, and in the province of Alberta; but for about three thousand miles between no supplies of native coal are available except those which must be brought from this great distance. Consequently, it will be for the Government to consider what can be done in making these supplies more effectually available to the people of this oountry. We have almost inexhaustible supplies of coal in Canada. I think my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, in an address which he delivered before the Royal Geographical Society about two or three years ago, made the statement that Canada probably 'contains1-if you estimate all kinds of coal including lignite-about 80 per cent of the total coal resources of the British Empire. The question, as I have said, is one of transportation, 'but connected also with that is the question of utilizing the lower grades1 of coal tby some process of manufacture .so that they can be transported without detriment and will be more useful to the people when they come to be consumed. That question has been under investigation by the Research Commission, and I believe that some results have been obtained which will be regarded as very fair, when they come to be announced at a later date. I hope, therefore, that we need not be unduly apprehensive with regard to the situa-

tion to which my hon. friend has very properly called attention. In view of what I have said with regard to the action which the Government has taken and as to the betterment'of conditions which has taken place during the past week, I trust the House will feel that the situation, for the present at least, is fairly well in hand.
Motion withdrawn.


CUSTOMS ACT-PROPOSED EXPORT REGULATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 182, to amend the Customs Act:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood that if this Bill is read the second time it will be referred to a special committee?


Robert Laird Borden: I pledged myself to that yesterday. I shall make a motion to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Robert Laird Borden: I now beg to
move, seconded by Sir George Foster:
That Bill No. 182 be referred for consideration and report to a special commitee consisting of the following: Sir Robert Borden, Mr. Burrell, Mr. Calder, Mr. Crerar, Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Fielding. Mr. Green, Mr. King, Mr. Lapointe.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 153 (from the Senate) respecting the Director of Coal Operations. He said:
I had not expected, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill would come up quite so early in the day. But I should not let the third reading pass without making reference to a statement made by myself when the Bill was in committee. The question was asked me at that time whether or not there was anything of a legal nature in dispute as to the powers of the Goal Director under the Orders in Council. I made reply-I could quote it direct, but I think I remember the words with sufficient accuracy-that so far as I was aware there was no such dispute; that so far as I was aware none had been made known to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Robertson) and that there could not be anything substantial in dispute at the present time. That, of course, was true. I find, however, that there was a matter in litigation at the time-1 did not know of it when

I spoke; I was only informed of it later by the Minister of Labour. The question in dispute was this: It appears that under one of the orders issued by the Coal Director acquiesced in at the time and acquiesced in since, provision was made that the employees of the mine should be members of' the United Mine Workers of America and should subscribe as such-something to that effect. As a consequence, certain members of what is called the "O.B.U." were not able to continue their operations in the mine at that time,-I do not know how many, but a very limited number. They entered action before the police magistrate claiming that the company, the Canmore Coal Company, had violated the Industrial Disputes Act in declaring what they called a lockout, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act prohibiting a lockout until application is made for a board of conciliation and that board has made its determination. They failed in their action. I believe that the defence was that there was nothing in the nature of a lockout and that in any event the orders of the Coal Director were being obeyed. That decision being given, the men who were concerned immediately went back to work and have been at work ever since-I believe they stayed out only a very few days. iSo that there is nothing of a substantial nature in dispute there,- merely the question whether the action taken was in the nature of a lockout. I assume that the amount of wages involved for that time is all that was lost in connection with it. However, the action taken was undoubtedly in pursuance of the order of the Coal Director, an order which was undoubtedly essential if that mine and many others were not to be locked up. The dispute, in essence,-indeed, in toto-which led to the making of the order was a dispute for control between the O.B.U. on the one hand and the United Mine Workers of America on the other. I cannot go into the details; they are not as familiar to me as they are to the Minister of Labour. But the dispute took the form of control of the	funds	that were
paid by the labourers month by month, it being contended-and I believe successfully contended-that those funds were being utilized by officers of the O. B. U. for purposes contrary to the constitution to which the men subscribed and for purposes neveT intended by the men themselves. On account of that condition of affairs the order made by the Coal Director was the only order in the world that had any possibility of success in bringing the men back and
getting something done and some product-sent out from the mines in question. It was a case of " get together on these lines or do not get together at all." As a consequence, with the acquiescence of both sides, this course was taken and has resulted in continued coal production since. There is nothing else in- dispute. This action was taken and was dismissed, as I have said. I do not know just when the action was taken,-some months ago. They entered an appeal against the decision of the magistrate, and that appeal is pending. So that while there is this question, it is certainly not of a substantial character, and to permit the whole foundation of the plan of conciliation that has worked so successfully all this time to be impugned on account of It, would, it appears to me, be wholly unjustified on the part of Parliament. I thought I should state to the House the information given me since the second reading and since the Bill was in committee. My information further is that there is nothing else whatever in dispute, -that is, between the parties and of a legal character.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should not like the third reading of this Bill to pass without once again stating my objections to the measure. In the first place, as I mentioned on the second reading of the Bill and in committee, it seems to me that Parliament is acting blindfolded in this matter. I repeat what I said before: that I do not believe a single member of the House has read the orders which are indicated in the schedule only by numbers, and to which we are being asked to give the effect of law. It is beneath the dignity of Parliament-indeed, it is bringing Parliament into contempt-to ask us to enact as law a code of regulations that we have not even perused. I hope I shall never see the day when as a member of this Parliament I shall be prepared to consent to any legislation without knowledge of the particulars to which it is proposed to give the force of legal enactment.
Another objection to this measure, and one that I think is very important-I spoke of it on the second reading of the Bill and I thought - some member of Ithe Government would deal with that aspect of the question-is the constitutionality of a measure of Ithis kind. This particular measure deals with matters of contract which come almost exclusively under the heading of property and civil rights. Under the Brit-

ish North America Act matters pertaining to property and civil rights come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; that- being the case, it would appear (that this Parliament has no jurisdiction in this time of peace, to pass a law which will in any way over-ride the legislative powers of the provinces. I wish to make this position very clear for the reason that I am informed that the Government of Alberta, which is one of the provinces concerned, are taking strong exception to this legislation. I have it on direct information from a member of the Government of Alberta that they have never been conferred with by the Federal Government in regard to this proposed enactment, and indeed the same, I believe, is true of the Government of British Columbia. I am informed that the Government of Alberta intend .to take exception to any over-riding of what they consider the rights of that province by the Federal Government. If we are anxious to further industrial peace and to help along the cause of law, order and good government in this country, we should be caTeful to avoid legislation which is certain to cause disputes between the provinces and the Dominion on a question of federal jurisdiction. Indeed, when we were discussing the eight-hour day in this House, the Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) distinctly stated that he was of the opinion that this Parliament had no power to enact legislation dealing with the interpretation of contracts having to do with property and civil rights within the different provinces. The minister's words to that effect will he found in Hansard at page 472. if that be the opinion of the Minister of Justice of the Government, how can the Administration introduce and ask this Parliament to enact into law a measure which is directly in violation of Ithe opinion expressed by the hon. minister. Inasmuch as this measure and the method of its introduction overrides what is befitting the position of Parliament as a deliberative assembly, ignores Parliamentary procedure and . rights, and once enacted is certain to raise a question of jurisdiction between the provinces and the Federal Government, a question of jurisdiction which, according Ito the opinion of the Minister of Justice himself, will in all probability be decided against this Parliament, I wish once again to register a strong protest against the Bill being enacted into law.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker,
in reply to what the hon. gentleman has urged, so far as I am aware, we have heard nothing of any protest from the Government of Alberta or the Government of -Saskatchewan. As it is something like a month or more since this Bill was introduced, one would be inclined to believe that if the Government of Saskatchewan or the Government of Alberta-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The
Government of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: -or the Government of British Columbia, or any other Government desired to take exception to this Bill, they would send a -communication to this Government instead of whispering their protest into the ear of my hon. friend, if that is what they have done. Further than that, my hon friend, must know if he has considered the situation at all, that these orders were made to the end that the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan might not undergo incalculable hardship and suffering from lack of coal during the long winter months. If these Governments take any exception to our jurisdiction and consider that the jurisdiction belongs to them and not to us. I would expect them to introduce any necessary legislation of their own so that the condition of order which has been brought about through the enactment of these regulations should be preserved without any question of a technical character being raised between this Government and any Provincial Government. We do not desire to raise any controversial question with them. The orders were made in the first instance for avoidance of hardship and suffering. Now we want to validate them if it is possible for this Parliament to do so, without trenching in any way upon the jurisdiction of the legislature of Alberta or the legislature of - Saskatchewan. In order that we might avoid any possible question, this measure was submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice for his opinion before it was introduced, and we have his opinion that it is within the competence off this Parliament. I recollect very well hearing Mr. Gladstone, on the only occasion when I had the privilege of hearing him speak in Parliament, say to the British House of Commons in respect of a question raised there, that every one -must recognize at once that a government ought to be and must be guided by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. We have

been guided by that opinion; and further, when the question of jurisdiction was raised in the Senate of Canada- by one of the honourable members of that body, the Minister of Labour took the matter up again with the Minister of Justice and the deputy minister and he was again assured that there was no reasonable doubt upon the subject, and that, according to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, the jurisdiction of this Parliament in the premises is absolutely undoubted. Under the circumstances, I do not see any merit in the protest which my Iron, friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) has put forward, and I sincerely trust that the third reading of this Bill will command the approval of hon. gentlemen.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I listened the other day to what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) had to say about this Bill, and as usual, of course, we were given a very clear statement of his attitude .and the attitude of the Government in regard to it. Nevertheless, I cannot help concurring absolutely in what has been said by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to the desirability of information being placed before the House in connection with any legislation that we are called upon to pass. There may be occasions when it is impossible to give us information oif that kind, but this is not one of them, and a fuller explanation of the contents of those orders and the necessity for them should have been furnished.
I did ndt, however, rise on this occasion to speak about that particular point. I want to say in reply to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that, as a rule, although there may be exceptions, all matters that come within property and civil rights ought, under our constitution, to be dealt with by the local authorities. That is a general rule that is well recognized, not only in this Parliament, but in the courts of the country. There may be a distinction in this case because the coal with which we are dealing is not the property of the provinces. The property with which we are dealing in connection with coal management, sales and operations in the different provinces is not. local property, and although I did not see noir hear the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, it is quite probably that he was influenced in giving it by knowledge of the fact that the property with which we were dealing was
Dominion Government property and not property belonging to the provinces.
He may or may not have had that view. I must say to the Minister of the Interior that I object .as strenuously as I can to any legislation being passed by this House which interferes with litigation that is pending in the courts, il need not waste any time in telling any layman in this House, much less the Minister olf the Interior, what a dangerous policy it would be for any Parliament to interfere with the practice and operation and jurisdiction of the courts of this country. Here is a case where a man commenced an action in some court of the province of British Columbia. It is said that a decision was given against him by the trial judge. He then has a right to appeal to the Appellate Court of the province of British Columbia. There are thousands of cases where the decision of a lower court has been reversed on appeal. I suppose on the average more cases succeed on appeal than are thrown out, .and we have no right to say that this man would not succeed on appeal to the Appellate Court of British Columbia. That is the case here as I understand it. There is an appeal pending from the judgment of the trial court. That judgment carries costs. The men might or might not succeed on appeal, but by this legislation we are blocking his way to appeal entirely. We are saying to him "You can go no further. There is a statute af this Parliament which strikes at the very point you are taking, which is, that these Orders in Council were not constitutional, and that the director went outside his jurisdiction." That contention may be perfectly well founded, but we are passing an Act that takes away from that man the right to appeal, and that throws him out of court. The least we should do is to undertake to pay his costs and outlays so far as he went. We have mo right to pass an Act of Parliament that throws him out of court and makes him amenable to any costs incurred up to that point. That is one of tire dangers of passing legislation of this kind. I would undertake to say that it has never been done before. I never saw an Act passed by our local Legislature, where I sat >for some years, or by this Parliament, which had a tendency to encroach on the rights of litigants that did not contain a provision to the effect that the legislation should not affect any pending litigation. If the minister will put that well known and ordinary provision in his Bill,

I shall have no objection to it. I am sure the minister must be familiar with that provision, and he ought not to object to including it in this Bill.
There are two ways in which the same purpose can be accomplished in matters oE this hind. If it was absolutely necessary that our officer should do things perhaps beyond his jurisdiction, we can protect him by allowing the law to take its course, and if there are any damages found against him, by paying those damages. That is the best way. If in the public interests of this country it should be found that this officer, exercising his best judgment, went beyond his jurisdiction and did things which he did not have power to do, thereby causing damages to somebody, let us pay those damages and protect the officer. But do not let us pass legislation to throw a man out of court and deprive him of his rights. I quite appreciate the necessity of giving large powers to officers of this kind, but as I have already said, there are two courses open to us. One is the course we are taking now, of confirming an act of the Coal Director whether it was right or wrong, and the other is to allow the law to take its course and assume responsibility for any damages that he has in good faith caused by exceeding the jurisdiction we imposed upon him. I shall be very much surprised if the minister allows the Parliament of Canada to gain the reputation of passing legislation which has the effect of throwing out of court a man who is in the position of appealing to the Appellate. Court from the decision of a trial court.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: I shall detain the House very briefly indeed with the remarks I have to make. They will be to press home, if I can, the remarks just made by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). This Bill consists of two clauses. The first clause continues the power of the Director of Coal Operations. That may or may not be wise, as a matter of policy. The second clause validates the orders which the Coal Director made by virtue of the Orders in Council passed some time ago, under which the Coal Director carried on his work. Now either the Director of Coal Operations acted within the authority confered upon him, and if he did, this section is unnecessary, or he acted outside his authority, in which case there may be, and we know that' there actually are people questioning his action before the courts. Certainly one of these cases is still pending. That being the case, if we con-

firm and validate and render legal what he did, we are putting ourselves in the position of passing post hoc legislation and of taking away without compensation a legal right which is claimed and which is being urged before the courts of the land. I cannot imagine any act of Government more subversive of sound principles than such an act, and I would ask the minister to eliminate this second clause of his Bill. If he cannot do that, I would ask him for his own sake and for the sake of the members of this House to make this second clause provide "saving the rights which are now being litigated before the courts," so that no man in this country will be able to say "I went into His Majesty's Court with a claim which I believed to be a just and right claim, and while it was under consideration by the court, or while I was preparing to argue my case before an appeal court, the Parliament of Canada without the slightest compensation to me took away the right which I believed I had." I would ask the minister to remove the possibility of that stigma being placed upon this Parliament.	*


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 168, to amend the Irrigation Act, iwas read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
On section 1-"spring" included in waters vested in Crown since 23rd July, 1894.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
significance of the change in this section?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It has little significance indeed. Under the Act of 1894, which brought all surface water under the authority of the Government and required no one to divert or use surface water except by permit or license, surface water was defined very comprehensively. A question has arisen as to whether or not that definition was wide enough to include water coming from springs. The Act has always been operated since 1894 on the assumption that that definition did include water arising from springs, and really for the life of me I cannot see how it could do anything else than include such water. The definition is wide enough to include it, but the question having arisen, Mr. Drake, of the Irrigation Branch, is very anxious to set it at rest and make sure that we have operated

3b95
within our rights all these years in controlling spring water in the three provinces concerned in the same way that we control surface water.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-error corrected.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: How did that error occur?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how it occurred. I had a written explanation, but it is not here.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-application for water for purposes having precedence affecting prior grants.
Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I should explain this clause more fully. Section 10 has four subsections, and this amendment proposes another subsection (4A). The first subsection declares that any water the property of which is vested in the Crown may be acquired for domestic, municipal, industrial, irrigation, and other purposes, including the granting of permission to erect dams, piers, booms and other necessary works in any non-navigable stream to facilitate the passage of logs, timber and other products of the forest along such stream, upon application being made; secondly, that all applications shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act; thirdly, such applications must show precedence according to the respective dates of their filing with the Commission. The fourth subsection provides that, subject to the provisions of subsection 3, applications for the several purposes mentioned shall show precedence in the following order: First, domestic purposes; second, municipal purposes; third, industrial purposes; fourth, irrigation purposes; and fifth, other purposes. That is to say, if there is just ' enough water for necessary domestic purposes, then the minister is bound to give those purposes priority. Then, if there is any more water he is bound to consider municipal purposes; next, industrial purposes, and then irrigation purposes, and finally other purposes. After the lapse of many years and very considerable development of irrigation in Alberta, water rights that have been granted for irrigation purposes or, say, industrial purposes have been exploited, and then perhaps a town springs up, and it turns out that the water is needed for domestic purposes. But the water right has gone and there is no provision for recovering it. So that the clause sought to be added is to give the right to
expropriate water for an inferior purpose for the benefit of a superior purpose upon payment of due compensation.
Mr. MoMASTER: Are these water rights alienated absolutely or only for a term of years?


Arthur Meighen: They are not alienated absolutely. The water right is granted, but I do not think that any definite number of years is fixed. Perhaps the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) would know.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I do not think there is a definite period.


Arthur Meighen: The water right is granted subject to certain conditions which must be lived up to year by year, but there is no definite number of years. You could not do that. For example, if you give a water right at the Bow river for irrigation, no man would put in an irrigation system like that of the Northwest Irrigation Company, going to the expense of building a system of canals, as they have done, at a cost of over $12,000,000, unless the water right is perpetuated. As I say, certain conditions contained in the water right must be lived up to, and those conditions are set out in the Irrigation Act; but so long as they comply with those conditions they have a permanent water right.


William Ashbury Buchanan: A number of irrigation systems have developed all oveT Alberta and all have been established by private companies. The Canadian Pacific own what is known as the old company headed by the late Sir Alexander Galt. They secured the rights to irrigate certain lands and in disposing of the lands to the people who purchase from them they have to guarantee a certain amount of water each season. Consequently these water rights, in my judgment, are permanent for all time, because it is part of the contract between the company and the purchasers to supply their land with water. If they cannolt carry out that contract and supply them with water the farm is not worth while and the farmer is stranded. There is a very serious condition in a section of Alberta at this momenlt and there is an urgent demand for the extension of irrigation. In one section of Southern Alberta, stretching from McLeod to Ithe Little Bow river and north thirty miles, the crop was practically blown out last week. Soil drifting is the great trouble there and they feel that the only remedy for the situation is the encouragement and development of irriga-


COMMOAS
[Stage Direction]
tion. If the extension of irrigation does not come immediately I venture to say to this House that there will be a movement of hundreds of farmers out of Ithat section of country because under present conditions they cannot farm there with success. Alongside of them there are these irrigation distridts which we have been referring to, where farmers are enjoying ' the greatest ' prosperity, because conditions which strike the man on Ithe dry land do not strike the man on irrigated land.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Dry territory does not help ?


William Ashbury Buchanan: I am sure that an
investment in irrigation on the part of the Albedta Government or of this Government for the purpose of irrigating these lands will save these people to this country and if that investment is not made these people are going Ito leave Canada and they are going to give a black eye to Canada because what they say will not apply to one section only but to the whole of Western Canada. Irrigation has been a huge success in Alberta and Ithe yields of irrigated land are much greater than those of dry land in any part of Western Canada. Last year in the irrigated district alongside the city of Lelthbridge the wealth in crops raised was about $5,000,000. The minister will bear me out in the statement that he travelled over eighty miles otf country there laslt fall and that he did not see the slightest indication of a crop until he reached this irrigated disltrict. It was rich with all kinds of crops. If we can do something to encourage irrigation and to establish these systems it will keep the people already in that country, and for the Governmenlts which are responsible for bringing them into Canada and settling them on this land it will be a good investment because any money expended in order to establish a system of irrigation will be returned, I venture to say, a hundred fold.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I just remark
that the object of my question to the minister was to bring before the committee the inadvisability of alienating the public domain where it is possible to carry on the development without doing so. I can quite understand how difficult it may be to get an irrigation company to make a great capital investment without giving them a tenure which is going to repay them and keep matters in a condition of practical continuity or permanency. I would be glad to learn from the minister whether, when

these rights are granted, provision is made for an increase in the tolls for the water. Let me draw attention to a similar case. In the province of Quebec we have a very valuable Crown domain in our forests. These forests are operated by lumbermen who have great investments in their mills, slides, booms, improvements of waterways and so on. But the Government, about every ten years, adjusts the scale of stump-age and usually on an ascending scale. I would be glad to know whether the conditions under which this water is leased to irrigation companies contains provisions whereby, when the water becomes more and more valuable owing to the increase in population and the fertility of the soil, the people will be able to draw the benefit from that by charging a higher rate.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there is any provision for a rate for the water at all. That is the recollection also of my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan). In this connection-I do not say it as a rejoinder-the water rights that have been granted, I think, were granted some time before 1911 to the Canada Land Irrigation Company and the Canadian Pacific. The great bulk of the development had proceeded through water rights granted before that year; so that if there was an error in policy it would not be attributable to me or to the two ministers before me. I do not think there was; I think the policy was right. The water which is used I have never regarded as something out of which the rest of the Dominion could exact a toll. It should be used with the greatest advantage to the people within the radius who can use it. All we seek to do is to so conserve and distribute the surplus water supply of that country as to get the utmost possible benefit for the -people there. We give water rights to companies for irrigation purposes providing municipal and industrial purposes do not first appear as necessary. We give the right, say, to take so many second feet from the St. Mary river. We do not give that right until we see what is going to be done with the water, what is [DOT] the plan for diverting that water and storing it and what land is to be benefited by it. We look after that. We also see that we have control of the water rate to be charged. We control also the duty of water; that is to say the amount of water that can be supplied to any given acreage of land per year. The Dominion Government will not permit the issue of water leases by the companies. The Canadian Pacific and the Canada Land and Irrigation Company-they are the chief ones-use only

the form of lease that is approved by the department. In the body of these leases provision is made for duty of water; consequently, we control the duty of water. We control the rate to be charged and everything else but the object is not to get revenue for the Dominion. The object is to get the utmost value of the water.
I want to say a word in reference to the hon. member for Lethbridge. I quite understand his bringing this question before the committee. Among the projects that have been before the Irrigation Branch of the Department of the Interior one of the most important is that of the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation project. Let the committee understand that the policy of the Department of the Interior, historically and most clearly emphasized within recent years, has been to only perform such services as are necessary to be performed in order that the department may know what the best use of the water is and in order that the department may have all the engineering and survey information to enable it to administer the water rights of 'the country. Consequently all the survey work has been done by the Interior Department. We also have offered-looking to the same end-to lend engineering assistance to any practical construction enterprise; but beyond that the Interior Department, or the Government of Canada, has never gone. We have taken the ground that after that work is done and the money expended for that purpose -from the Federal Treasury is gone-and it has amounted to huge sums of money; I think our appropriation this year is in the neighbourhood of a million-after granting very large sums of money-and they are not returnable; this is not in the nature of a loan, it is in the nature of an investment out of the Federal Treasury for the benefit of the district-then we feei that our duty is performed and beyond that point the obligation rests upon the local authorities, municipal or provincial, or even private.
Now, one of the areas in which we have operated for some time and in respect of which our work is practically complete- it is largely advanced anyway-is this northern Lethbridge irrigation district. That district has been without water, has been scourged with famine for three years previous to this, and consequently distress-or something very close to distress-prevails throughout it. Some 90,000 acres are included in our irrigation project there. This year-although generally speaking the season was propitious and there was quite a
lot of rain-a tornado has swept the district and has driven the soil into piles; in .fact it has denuded the whole surface of the earth in that district, of soil.
Mr. MoMAiSTER:	The people should
come back to the East.


Arthur Meighen: This could not have occurred had the actual work been done. .That fs to say had the land been brought under irrigation there could have been no such drifting of the soil. Therefore at the present time a very serious situation faces those people, and I can understand the concern of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) in this regard. Now so far as the Government of Canada is concerned I do not know that all of us feel the same intimate sympathy with the people that I do. I would feel like going to the extreme limit that the Federal Government could possibly go, in justice to the rest of this Dominion in seeking to cooperate with the provincial authorities to relieve that situation; but I think the line having been clearly drawn, and there being no possibility of doubt as to the wisdom of the point at which it is drawn, we cannot go further-at least until we have some proposal from the local authorities looking for further advance.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I would like to represent the view of the people in that particular community. They feel that the condition which exists this year should be treated as an emergency because it has left them in practically the same position as Halifax was left in a few years ago, when that city was blown up. Practically everything in the world that these people had has been blown away. Now I make this statement: They have had crop failures there for three years, and everything they have is mortgaged up to the hilt. There is no relief for them whatever except through the development of irrigation. That will save them and that will make the district-and the people who live in that district-worth while to this country. If they are not saved now it is hard to say what will happen. The chief trouble is to dispose of the bonds and-in my judgment-there will have to be co-operation between the province and the Dominion in order to met the situation. If the leader of the Opposition or the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) should happen to visit the West this year and go into my part of the country I will show them some of the richest country in Western 'Canada-that is the irrigation sections around Lethbridge.

I will be very glad to see both gentlemen and to show those sections to them.
4p.m. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	We
will be there.
Mr. MeKENZTE: I have not very much to say about this matter. I am in the fullest possible sympathy with the people whose lands have been placed in the condition described by the Minister of the Interior, and the hon. member for Lethbridge. The latter said that the farmers in that part of the country are in the same position as the people of Halifax when they had the explosion. There is this difference, ho-wever, in the two situations: The people of the Lethbridge district have to find fault with the dispensation of Providence, whereas the people of Halifax had to suffer by reason of the stupidity of certain men sent by the Federal Government to take over Halifax harbour. There is that very strong difference between the two situations.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
gentleman say?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said that the farmers in that section of the West have to put up with the dispensation of Providence,-with hot winds, tornadoes, and that sort of thing -whereas the people of Halifax had to find fault with a lot of stupid men sent by this Government to handle the business of the harbour. That is the striking difference between the two situations.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member mean to say that that caused the explosion at Halifax?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, that caused the
explosion. The finding of the court was that the ships were stupidly handled, allowed to come into collision, and that caused the explosion.


Arthur Meighen: Did we handle the
ships?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Your officers handled
the ships.


Arthur Meighen: I thought they were
handled by their captains?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly, but they
were under the guidance of the harbour master at the time. He was an official of this Government, and if he knew his business would not have allowed the two ships to come together at the narrow place where they collided. That is certainly where he was at fault. I believe possibly the captains did the best they could, but the vessels should never have been allowed to

come together in a narrow passage when the harbour authorities could and should have prevented it. There is that striking difference between the situation in the West and the situation in the harbour of Halifax. But what I was going to say to the minister is that if we as a Government, and as a country, are selling those lands-[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member
sure that the Government is not responsible for that tornado in the West? I would not like him to be too rash.
Mr. MeMASTEF.: He said you were not responsible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Unless the hon. gentleman unites himself with Providence, I leave that matter in doubt for the present. What I was going on to say is this: If we as a Government, and as a country, encouraged people to go upon this land we certainly have every right to look after them and see that everything is done for them that possibly could be done. But if those lands were sold by land companies and speculators, as a matter of speculation I do not quite see the justice of our coming in at very large expense and helping to make those lands habitable, when I am hopeful we have other lands better fitted for cultivation which ought to have been available for settlement. The point I make is that if we are encouraging farmers to settle on lands in the West we should first of all place them on good lands, if we have anything at all to say about it, which would offer a better prospect to settlers and entail less expense upon the people of the country. I say further that if lands that were 'being held for speculative reasons were sold to farmers for farming purposes when they were not fit for such purposes then those companies and speculators and not the people of 'Canada should assume the responsibility. Such land companies have no very great claim on us to make those lands fit for cultivation as farms when they were not suitable for any such purpose at the time of sale. I draw a distinction between the two conditions. I repeat that if we encourage settlers to go on those lands, and place them there, we have a right to do everything possible to help them out. But if the lands were bought from land companies who were holding the land for speculative purposes then the sufferers should look to those companies for succour in their time of distress; I do not think they have the same claim on us, as they might have under the other conditions referred to. If we have lands which are fit

for cultivation and which do not need irrigation we should direct people to those lands before we put them on lands which are not fit for cultivation.


William Ashbury Buchanan: The people who are
crying for irrigation and who must have it to save their lives are people who have been in that district for fifteen years. They have their homes and their farm buildings, but they are stranded now because they can get no crops on account of the peculiar situation that exists. They are prepared to bond everything they have, land, buildings and everything else, in order to raise money to bring irrigation into that district. There is practically no wild or idle land in that part of the country-that is to say, that would be of advantage to promoters or companies. The district has been incorporated under the Alberta Irrigation Act, but it is impossible except at great sacrifice to dispose of the bonds on the financial market at the present time; their disposition under these conditions would increase the cost per acre for irrigation. So that if in some way Governments could assist to maintain the value of these bonds it would be well worth while. Mention was made by my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) of charges for water. In the commencement of development of irrigation in Western Canada, as I recollect it, Governments were only too willing to encourage companies to go in and irrigate the land, and to give them certain privileges in regard to water. But in no case can any of these companies make a charge for the water right to the individual farmer without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Irrigation at Ottawa. There is no opportunity for them to use the water in order to make money out of it for themselves. The matter is dealt with somewhat on the same basis as the distribution of Hydro-Electric power and light in Ontario. That was the policy that was adopted back in the early nineties and which has been followed since. The district I speak of has been formed practically on the same basis as a rural municipality and the people have voted a bond issue in order to bring in the water for distribution over that area. As I have said, if they could dispose of these bonds there would be no trouble whatever, but at present they cannot dispose of them. A wind storm has come along and blown all their crop away and they are stranded. What I now want is co-operation between the Dominion and Provincial Governments to bring about a solution of the problem.


Mr. MARTIN:: Did I understand my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) to blame the harbour master at Halifax for the explosion that took place there?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not the man who is
really called the harbour master, because he was superseded by the officer who was in charge at that time.


Peter Francis Martin: I wish to say that he had nothing to do with it. It was taken out of his hands altogether by the naval authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-power to reserve any unappropriated water, and allocate the whole or any part in the public interest:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain this clause?


Arthur Meighen: When I was looking
over this coal area last August accompanied by Mr. Drake, we came to the conclusion that the supply of water that was going to be available would be far short of what could be usefully applied to the land there and that if priority of application were in the future to prevail we were not likely to get the best results from that water. Consequently I put through an Order in Council, which at the time we felt was fully within our powers, reserving the unappropriated water in order that a full survey might be made of it with a view to its best utilization. This clause grants that power and dates it back to the date of the order so that there may be no question as to the validity of the reservation then made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-storage of water:
Arthur Meighen: This clause provides
for the joint utilization of works constructed or under construction and for their joint maintenance thereafter. The principle was embodied in the old legislation but the old legislation enabled only the division or use of works constructed. This goes on and in more detail provides that during construction the minister may make orders as to joint utilization, say, of a canal, or of a reservoir, upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon or, failing agreement, as determined by himself. Otherwise duplication would inevitably result in capital investment in canal, reservoir and irrigation construction.
Mr. McMAiSTER: Subclause (2) of clause 6 reads:

The minister may grant to any applicant for the carriage of water to his lands, the right to use any portion of the works constructed, under construction, or to be constructed, by any company whenever, In his opinion, it is necessary or desirable so to do.
The word "company," it seems to me, contemplates that only a company is to put up works of this character. I would presume they were generally put up by companies, but I could quite understand where a rich man interested in the development of a section might himself as an individual be constructing works. In that case, it would seem to me that a neighbour would have the same right to come in as if the work were being constructed by a company. I would, therefore, suggest to the minister the use of some language which would cover both a private individual and a company or a partnership.


Arthur Meighen: I did not notice that. I do not know why the word "company" is used, and unless the word "company" is defined in the interpretation clauses of the main Act to include a person, I would certainly think it should be changed. I should not like to change it now because I have not the main Act in front of me, but unless the word "company" is defined so as to .be wide enough, I will ask that an amendment to that effect he made in the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-penalty for refusal to neglect to carry out orders.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This clause is of the nature of several others to which I have taken objection, namely, giving the minister power to issue orders and then providing penalties of a somewhat severe nature should ady one disobey them. When penalties are provided, some safeguard and protection ought to be thrown around the liberties of individuals, and the power to make orders enforcable by penalty ought to be restricted at least to an Order in Council and not simply left to the caprice of the minister.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has to do what is set out, say in the previous clause; he has to come to a conclusion as to what is a reasonable arrangement for the use and maintenance of a joint canal, and he determines on that. It is necessary that his order be obeyed; otherwise the clause is nugatory. I only wish to ,say again that I have no objection and I have never known of any minister who has had any objection to being compelled to go to Council for an Order. That is a protection to the minister; he feels that the responsibility is not

his. The difficulty is that the proceeding cannot be anything other than a mere formality, and indeed, an impediment to the proper transaction of business that is necessarily the business of Government. The present state of affairs is really ridiculous; a minister cannot accept the resignation of a clerk; he cannot enfranchise an Indian on his own application; h;e cannot cancel a sale of .school lands except by an Order of the Governor in Council, and what is the result? Every week there may be twenty school land sales cancelled, I do not know how many Indians enfranchised and all the rest of it. I have given only a few illustrations out of hundreds. The consequence is that a plethora of material reaches Council, and the consideration of subjects that must be considered by the Cabinet as a whole is really impeded by the Cabinet having to go through whaJt is merely routine, and you get no result from that at all. I know this seems o.f itself as important, and unless one realizes the tremendous scope and extent of the volume of business that comes before Council, one is very much inclined to do this. I have not the silghteslt exception to this being done; but I know as well as I am standing on my feet that it would not be ultimately in the public interest. Of course, if we change this, we shall have to go back and change all the other clauses of the Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I point out to the minister thalt there is a considerable difference between the acceptance of the resignation of some clerk by Order in Council and the imposing of a penalty of $500 or two months imprisonment upon a free citizen? That is the point to which I am taking exception. I quite agree with what the minister has said that the time of Council is altogether too much taken up in dealing with routine matters that come before it; but there are some matters concerning which it is really wise to have extra precautions taken and any matter [DOT]which imposes a penalty upon an individual belongs Ito that class. The minister is right when he says that Ithis would be a protection to the minister himself. In these cases, many orders must necessarily be left to subordinate officials, the minister simply giving his signature of approval to an order. If a little extra precaution could be thrown around all orders of that kind, a greater sense of security would be afforded to parties concerned, and I hope the minister 'will follow out the suggestion.

Mr, MEIGHEN:	I would be glad Ito do
so and to go over the Bill and change every clause of it so as to have every order made by the minister supplemented by an Order in Council. But I feel, if I do that, I shall have-to go through the whole of the original Adt which I think was passed by a former Government of the party to which the hon. member belongs, and see that the minister had no power to make an order there except wilth the authority of the Governor in Council. As long as the minister has power to make an order, there must be a clause providing for a penalty. It happens that there are several specific clauses providing for penalties for specific violations ; bult through some oversight there was no general clause, as there always should be, providing for a penalty for violation of the Act. This is that general clause, and consequently it applies to the whole Act. If the minister is not to be allowed to make an order for himself, then the whole Act must be amended so as to ensure that he has not that power. There is no use giving the minister the power to make an order and then having no clause which enables that order to be enforced. That prevents me from accepting the suggestion, although I would much rather accept it as regards this Bill than have any contention over it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I make a suggestion which might help the situation, although perhaps I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bill or with the original Act to make this suggestion with any degree of confidence? The minister will not be in the position of having to fine or imprison a person unless that person has refused to obey the minister's order, and these orders will very possibly come under section 6. If I am right so far, I would suggest that under subsection (3) of section 6 the minister is the sole arbiter to determine the amount to be paid. Why not provide for an appeal from the minister's decision, either to a court or to Council, so that those people who are not satisfied with the minister's decision shall have the right to appeal. Then if people have not confidence in their case and are not prepared to appeal, they cannot complain if the minister is given power to punish them for their recalcitrancy.


Arthur Meighen: I think it would be better and would meet the hon. member's wishes if we amended section 6 to make every order of the minister subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. Then
any one disobeying section 6 would be disobeying the Governor in Council. So far as section 6 is concerned, I am quite prepared to have those words inserted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not desire to accumulate the work before Council. I quite understand the soundness of the minister's contention that Council is already loaded up with a lot of routine matters to the disadvantage of the public interest. My idea was to give to a party dissatisfied with the minister's determination of the question an opportunity to appeal to Council or to the court of appeal in the province in which the dispute arose. Then if the man did not take an appeal he would be acquiescing in the minister's judgment, and he could not complain of receiving his punishment at the hands of the minister, while it would protect the subject from having the minister alone find him guilty or render a decision with which he was dissatisfied. The minister is going even further to meet my objection than I asked. I limited my demand, in view of his statement as to the accumulation of routine matters before Council.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister has power to make an order and makes an order, you could not say to a man "If you dispute that order we will give you an appeal against the minister to the Governor in Council, "because the Governor in Council would be bound to support the minister or the minister would have to go. Once the order goes out, that is the law of the land, and the only place to bring in the Governor in Council is precedent to the order going out.
Mr. MdMASTER: It seems to me that the minister under subsection (3) of section G really sits as an arbitrator, or a sort of judge, and there is no reason, it seems to me, why sitting as a judge he should feel that he would have to resign if Council did not support him.


Arthur Meighen: Once his order has gone out. The minister makes his order determining the conditions for the joint use of the canal. His order has gone out. Then John Smith says: "I will not follow it. I will not pay my share," and he goes to the Governor in Council. Now the minister's order is the law of the land. It has gone out, and John Smith is appealing between the minister and the Government, and the Government must support its own minister. There is no precedent anywhere for an appeal of that kind. I am quite content to

say that no such order shall go out until the Governor in Council approves of it. Certainly I agree with the leader of the Opposition that there are many other things of infinitely less consequence that the Governor in Council must approve of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister submit his amendment?


Arthur Meighen: I will prepare it while the Chairman is reading the next section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Meighen the committee reverted to section 6-storage of water:
Arthur Meighen: I beg to add as subclause 5 of section 6 the following:
All orders made under this section shall be approved by the Governor in Council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
right.
Amendment .agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Militia and Defence-Cadet services, $390,000.
['It refers to petitions and addresses to the Legislatures.\nAmendment, clause as amended, and title, agreed to.\nBill reported with amendments, read the third time and passed.\nOn the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 3.24 a.m. Friday.\nFriday, June 18, 1920.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a considerable increase here over the amount that was voted last year for this purpose. Perhaps the minister would give the committee some particulars as to what he proposes to do with this money.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The amount voted for
19-19-20 was $100,000; this year it is $390,000. During the year 1918-19 the expenditure under this head was only $68,000, but in 1913-14, the year immediately preceding the war, it was $392,206. That was considered about the normal expenditure for pre-war times. During the war not so much attention wae paid to cadet training as prior to the war, hut I think the House will realize the value of that training. It has a value to the whole country apart altogether from any question of militia training, and it is proposed now to return to the pre-war basis, the amount asked for the current year being practically the same as was voted before the war. During the war certain reductions were made and the annual cadet camps were not held. It is intended to hold those camps this year, and to restore the former allowances which 
were made to the instructors. It is the purpose to give school teachers and instructors the opportunity of themselves being trained for the purpose of properly instructing the cadets. In this way the pre-war system will be re-instated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What classes
of persons are given cadet training?
.Mr. GUTHRIE: The Statute that applies to this subject is the Militia Act, Section 64, the Statutes of Canada, 1906. The cadet corps are divided into three classes: first, those composed of pupils in attendance at colleges and schools controlled by the Government of the province in which such institutions are situated; second, those composed of pupils in attendance at colleges and schools not under government control; and third, those composed of lads who, with the permission of their parents or guardians, prefer to join a corps unconnected with any educational establishment. Those three classes are trained.


Mr. MARCH (Bonaventure) :: What formalities are necessary for the formation of a cadet corps in any rural district?


Hugh Guthrie: Application is made to cadet training inspector of the district asking for permission to establish a corps and setting out the number of pupils that can be entered and trained. If the number is sufficient to warrant its formation, the corps is immediately established and a man is sent from the military district to undertake its training. Once the corps is established it is entitled to all the benefits that accrue under the Act, and teachers are entitled to a certain amount of military training, if you choose to term it so, in order to qualify them for the work in their district.
Mr. 'MARCH: What accoutrement does the department furnish?


Hugh Guthrie: The accoutrement is
modest. The drill inspector is paid, but for the cadets themselves there is only an allowance of $1.25,-$1 for uniform and 25 cents for a hat. I think that is the only accoutrement allowance, although I am not sure of that. Possibly in many cases we have supplied some obsolete arms for the purpose of infantry drill, but the only actual allowance for uniform is $1.25 per head.


Mr. PROULX:: Are the camps held during July and August?


Hugh Guthrie: As a rule they are held in August and they last for six days. The Estimate for the present year, based on that

of the year preceding the war, is made up as follows: subsistence for 25,000 cadets in camp at 50c. each day, $75,000; transportation and return at $3 per head, $75,000; washing blankets after camp, $5,000; staffs at cadet camps, $10,000; and the usual grant to the Canadian Rifle League of $500. That grant is for cadets. I have given the cost of the camps.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose it is rather
a dangerous thing for a person to say anything against the training of cadets, but I take the risk of saying that the training of cadets in this country Is ot a military character, the idea behind it being to bring up a class of men who will have a relish for, and afterwards enter, the militia service. I do not think that it is desirable at the present time, in view of our financial condition, that we should spend money on anything which we can do without. The question is, can we do without the training of cadets just now? Can we do without the militia itself for a few years until we get over the crest of the hill?
Mr. LE.GER: Certainly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are we in a position
to spend money to-day for services of this kind? It was said yesterday that cadets were necessary in order to furnish men for the militia. Perhaps so. But I appeal for support in my contention that the present time is inopportune for us to spend money for this purpose. I appeal not only to the minister but to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), who perhaps has more experience and knowledge of military matters than any other man in Canada. I am not by any possible means1 saying that I always agree with the hon. gentleman; but if I were asked the question, who is the man in Canada that has the longest experience and the biggest soldier heart, who is the man that has given the most of his life to military training in this country-I would certainly say the hon. member for Victoria. I therefore appeal to him. When the militia of this country were obliged to go into the open in the Fenian Raid days of 1866, I think, or 1870, I venture to say that we had a class of stalwarts in the militia at that time that cannot be produced to-day. Again, at the time of the trouble in the West in 1885, I appeal to my hon. friend to endorse the opinion that a class of men jumped to arms in this country, as able and capable as could be found in any part of the world either then or to-day. I mention these two epochs in our history because, before 1866 and 1870 and for many 235	\
years afterwards, we had no cadet corps in this country. Up to 1885 we had no such corps in Canada, and I venture to think that there was not a single man of full age and fully developed physique in the last army that we raised who could in any way ascribe his physical ability and his courage to cadet corps training. I am speaking of my own part of the country, where there can be found men as strong and sturdy and brave as there are anywhere in the world. The men from that part of the country went to the front and won glory for themselves, and there i? no such thing in my county as a cadet corps worth mentioning. There are a few organizations here and there, but we have no cadet corps worth talking about. I do not want to tailk aiboult myself tout When I was growing up there was no such thing aB a cadelt corps. Yet I can stand about .as much hardship as any one. I was about as hardy a Scotch boy as was to be found anywhere, developed entirely through the ordinary games 'and .sports to which young men are usually drawn. There was no petticoat business as 'there is with this organization that iis spoken of now. I think it is very largely a waste of time to have boys going around the country with drumsticks in their hands and (wasting energy that might he better developed. I know the risk I am taking and the probable ridicule with which my remarks will toe received but I dd say 'that, in 'the condition of the country to-day when Iwe have no money to extend our railways to the fishing villages .along 'the coast where people are dying for want of proper transportation- not dying in the full sense of 'the term but praying and pressing 'for such development; when our harbours, breakwaters, wharves and public works cannot toe repaired and are -allowed to fall into, decay because the Department of Public Works tell us they have no money; when .all these things 'are crying out for the necessary .money to keep 'them up and to develop them in such a way as to help trade in this country and to lower the high cost of living, we -are nolt justified in (spending in the neighbourhood olf $400,000 for play of this kind that can very well he done without. These things are excellent amusements land possibly have a tendency to develop the mind of the boy in a. better direction than would be the case if there were no such 'training but I submit to the minister, the Government and this committee that there are occasions when there are greater calls than the purpose for which this vote is asked, which calls should



be heeded and anything that can he deferred should be deferred ih the present crisis.


Hugh Guthrie: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that Captain Clarke of Guelph?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, and of Kitchener, because he trained the schools there too. The cadet corps has been one of the chief supports of the militia and particularly durihg the late war.
(^ Sir SAM HUGHES: I may say to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), who has done me the honour to mention my name, that in the old Normal school days in the province of Ontario, Dr. Sangster, who was the principal of the Normal school in Toronto took up the matter of cadet training and Colonel Goodwin and his son who were excellent swordsmen and good shots did splen-

did work as instructors. No Normal school teacher was allowed to teach who was not qualified to engage in the training Of cadet corps in the schools. I wish toi draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that when I was in charge of the Department of Militia and Defence there was scarcely a teacher in the province of Nova Scotia who was not fully qualified to teach the cadet corps and who had not a cadet corps certificate. I am sure that the splendid fellows who were, sent out from the schools oif North Cape Breton were inspired by the splendid work of the cadet corps in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia took the matter up very actively through their public education department, under Dr. McKay I think. it was, and went into it very enthusiastically. I think the records showed that about 20,000 school teachers in the Dominion of Canada were qualified to instruct students in military drill, calisthenic exercises and physical training. The public at large, the churches and ladies' organizations were at one time opposed to this cadet movement believing that those who engaged in it had murder in their hearts. But those days have gone by and they now recognize its value. This principle is recognized:-
Beware the soft breathing that preaches of peace
With a pledge giving lip and a tear lighted eye.
Hear it all with good will but be provident still
With men that are earnest and powder that's dry.
That is good old North Cape Breton Presbyterian doctrine. I am glad that my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) grew up to be one of the most muscular chaps in the neighbourhood always ready to defend himself with his fists as well as with his tongue.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has gone to the very heart of the matter in discussing the conditions which prevailed in Canada prior to the Fenian Raid and the Rebellion of 1885 in stating that the men of Canada in those days required no particular physical preparation for entering upon any military work. That is the fact due to the social and economic conditions which prevailed in those days. Because the social and economic conditions in Canada have gradually changed, and have brought about a new condition of life, it is necessary that we should have these cadet organizations to, in large measure, take the place of those very social and economic conditions which have changed through the

passing of time. In the old days the life which the people lived m'ore or less fitted them for military duties. The life which people live nowadays has an opposite or different effect. For that reason the cadet corps serve a tremendously useful purpose, as has been pointed out by the minister.
Although-1 have no Scotch blood in me I would like to protest against the observations of the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) in referring to a certain form of military uniform as a petticoat business. I would like to point out that it may look like a petticoat but it is not.


John Hampden Burnham: I would fain disagree with the hon. member for North Cape Breton about his own tough looking appearance which he seems to pride himself on.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What was that last observation?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: We would like to hear that observation.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. member for North Cape Breton said he was about as tough a specimen as there was anywhere.


Alexander William Chisholm: Physically.


John Hampden Burnham: Well, I do not say what. Otherwise, however, I do not agree with him. I think that the appropriation for the cadets should be in the Estimates of the Health Department. I have heard very many doctors say that there was absolutely nothing so good for the young men and the young women of that age as cadet training. It counteracts the student stoop; it tends to keep them straight, and prepares them for domestic life in accustoming themselves to the word of command. All these things are valuable and make for peace.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Not always.


John Hampden Burnham: It is not necessary to steer the young into military life simply because you endeavour to promote amongst them a sort of esprit de corps, of snappiness, a pride in their appearance, and of some sense of aversion'towards that sloppiness which is apt to characterize young people, when they reach a certain age if it is not counteracted. But the strongest argument for all this, as I say, is the doctors' argument. I am sure the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) will agree with me when I say that the medical profession actually insist upon a continuance of cadet training for the purposes to which I refer. It should not, however, be confined to young men. Young women should have 2.35J
some of it and in the past they have had some of it. I have seen many exhibitions in which young women have formed themselves into companies have been properly trained, and afforded a great deal of entertainment to themselves and other people- useful entertainment. I do not think that such things as these which go to the. life, and to the bone and sinew, of the country should 'be treated lightly or as a matter of mere expense. They should be treated as a matter of health for whatever Government is in power we must have good men and wumen; aii-1 since nowadays the churches themselves confess that they are all gone to the dogs the least we -can do is to keep up the school and try to help them out.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I trust that the member who has just resumed his seat is speaking for his own church and not for the Presbyterian Church of Canada. I -will detain the committee for but a very short time this afternoon in offering some observations on this question of cadet services. I am quite willing that money should be spent on developing the health of the youth of Canada. I also agree most heartily with -the member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that the young women and girls of Canada have just as great a claim upon the Government for help in the development of their physical powers as have the youth or the boys of Canada. I would like to say that if money is spent along these lines it should be given to organizations such as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts rather than for Cadet Services. It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that those of the militarist frame of mind harve totally failed 'to learn the lessons of the recent Great War. We have listened last night in this House to speeches of a profoundly distressing and depressing character. We have heard men, whose reputations and whose characters we hold in high esteem, make statements which, if they mean anything mean this: That the war has 5 p.m. been fought in vain; that vre are just as far from a reasonable method of settling international disputes as we were in the year 1914; that there is just as much need for military and naval preparation; and that the reign of the Prince of Peace is just as far distant as it ever was. Sixty thousand of the bravest and best of Canadian youth-aye, not only of the youth but of even middle-aged and more matured manhood-lie under the sod of France and Flanders, yet the minister is asking us all the time to go back to the

scale of military expenditure which was in operation before 1914, I ask him, and I ask his supporters, if those boys died in vain? Is it as necessary now as it was then to spend the same amount of money and to give the same, and even more, time and thought to preparation for war?


Mr. EDWARDS:: What do you think about it yourself?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think that this war
has proved that militarism is the most stupendous and gigantic failure that one can imagine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I say that those men who come before their respective nations- just as the Minister of Militia came before us last night-and prate that the dignity and the honour of their country-the dignity and the honour of their country forsooth !-can only be supported by training men to kill each other-


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. member think that the men who did fight would have been less effective if they had been trained a little before the war broke out instead of, as it was, taking up so much time in training them?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think it was proved in the last great war that those men who went into the army from civil life were, on the whole, more successful commanders, than the professional soldiers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As one general-
'Sir SAM HUGHES: May I ask-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to have
a chance to finish my point. As one general expressed it, they had less to unlearn than others who had been in military life before. I read with pride in a great English newspaper the other day that there were three outstanding corps commanders^ in the British army: One was the professional soldier, General Haldane; the other two were non-professional soldiers, one being from the Dominion of Australia, I Ithink General Monash, and the other our own Sir Arthur Currie. The two latter were civilians and when the war came they proved themselves to be splendid soldiers. Let me say this again-


Mr. STEVENS:: Were not these so-called civilian generals tiained in the militia of Itheir respective countries, and for many years?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I knew nothing at all about General Monash, but I am aware that General Currie was a volunteer soldier of distinction.
Mr. STEiVENS:	Certainly, and he had
received a training such as we are trying (to make provision for now.
Mr. GRIEiSBACH: So was Monash.
Mr. McMiASTER:	Oh, I am surprised
that any militarist dares to face his fellow-beings. You have called for preparation; you have said: "Give us money and we will ensure you against war." Hon. members opposite smile; they think it is amusing. Well, is it amusing when a man feels these things in his heart and wishes in all sincerity to speak forth his inmost thoughts? You claimed that it was necessary to have preparation; you said that it would ensure the safety of the world if you only had a few armies and a few navies. And what has been the result? The result has been that a generation of young men in Europe has been wiped out. I heard the other day that a generation of young men in France who came to the age of about twenty in 1914 has practically been wiped out, and very much the same thing-
Mr. GRIESiBACfH: By what method might the French nation have avoided the war which fell upon them?
Mr. McMAlSTER: I have on a previous occasion said most emphatically that when one great nation set the pace it is very difficult indeed for other nations not to keep step. But I have also said this, and I repeat it : If one-tenth of the energy, the money and the thought that were devoted to arming one part of Europe against another had been devoted instead to bringing the different parts of Europe together, the war would not have come on.


William Cameron Edwards: Why did you not tell
them that before the war?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Just as in this House sneers and jibes are thrown at those who believe that there is a possibility of bringing mankind together, then as now there were those who sneered at efforts made to bring mankind together. There were great interests whose business it was to keep	the	various	nations on theverge of	w'ar in	order that they
might sell to them the instruments of destruction. There were English shareholders in Krupp's; there were German shareholders in the Armstrong-Whitworth firm and other concerns of that sort. There was an international trust for the purpose

of arming the different nations one against the other. Before the war the great nation of iGermany had apparently made up its mind that its destiny was to be either world-empire or downfall. They threw down the gauge of battle and it was not world-empire for them, thank God; it was downfall. But that frame of mind has received a check. That enemy is in the dust. Leaders in all the civilized nations of the world-not all leaders, I am sorry to say, but a great number of them- are endeavouring to form a League of rvavioixs. xl io \juhc ...nthat my hen. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) thought the League of Nations was a silly sort of thing. But after all it is a question of either a League of Nations or another war, unless nations are prepared to combine in order to develop some other reasonable and efficacious mode of settling international disputes. I am quite willing to admit that the present League requires serious change and serious modification. But there is one ideal laid before humanity-to try to organize a new world on a better basis. Then there is the other idea, the idea tO' get back to the prewar scale of military expenditure.
Last winter I had the honour of being at a dinner given for the young men of the church I go to who had been through the war. Some one hundred and thirty of them went out of the congregation, and some sixteen will never come back. But for those who came back we gave a complimentary dinner, and what struck me more than anything else, Mr. Chairman, was that these returned soldiers were just boys. In the world it has been the statesmen, the diplomats, the large business interests, the mature men, who have been responsible for the policies leading to war, but it has been the boys of the different nations that have fought and won the wars-or lost them, as the case may be. Surely it is time for Canada to set the pace toward a more reasonable condition of world organization. Surely we can try it. We are particularly favoured in this country; we are in such a position that we can without danger to ourselves make the experiment. The idea of a .quarrel between our neighbours to the south and ourselves is simply unthinkable; no one with any responsibility would contemplate .such a condition for a moment. That being the case, why not set the pace towards disarmament?
I ask you this, Mr. Chairman:	Is :it a
wise thing to bring up the youth of this land to be soldiers? I am willing to say that drill may be beneficial to physical development. I am even prepared to go fur-
.aa,
t-her and to say that a reasonable amount of drill has certain educational value. I am willing to have the youth of the country drill, but for the present at least, until we see whether or not this League of Nations is going to be a success, let us not develop the military side of the young man's mind; let us rather teach him cooperation for other purposes. When the distinguished soldiers who are in this House led their men on the battlefields of Europe I think they found that the Canadian, who, perhaps, had never had a uniform on hefnrp he enlisted, was man for man superior to his foe in actual conflict. When they came to hand-in-hand engagement, which, I understand, happens very seldom-they certainly were man for man the equal if not- superior to the enemy.


John Hampden Burnham: Why?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Because, for one reason, they had grown up in a country where universal military service was not enforced; because of the initiative and strength of character which is found in those who dwell in a country where the free development of individual character is encouraged; because of characteristics found in those who are not brought up in the atmosphere of a conscript nation. That is one reason, and that is one reason why if we wish to train the youth of this country in physical culture we may, for the time at least, divorce that idea from the military viewpoint. I have no objection to the country spending a reasonable amount-but let it be as reasonable as possible-[DOT] in training the youth along the lines of the co-operation of mental and physical development-and when I say "youth" I mean the girls, too; the girls should have their summer camps as well as the boys. But, in the name of common sense and viewing the fact that the militarists . have so entirely failed to do what they said they would do for their respective nations when they were bleeding them white by taxation, let us endeavour to conduct these camps, for the time being at least, without the military atmosphere.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not intended to delay the House in connection with these items; but I confess to yon, Sir, that sitting in my place and trying to fulfil my duties by being present in this House, I get somewhat wearied with the Pharisaical lectures that we are constantly treated to by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). A moment ago my hon. friend, in violation of the rules of the House addressing us directly, Sir, and ignoring the Chair, used the sweeping term "you militarists." I protest against

this; but I wish to draw the attention of the committee briefly to one of the preposterous arguments that he presented. He cited certain generals who had achieved a very high record at the front and he pointed to two who, he said, were civilians. Let me refer to the .Canadian one with whom we are all *acquainted. Sir Arthur Currie, during the early part of his life, in fact, right down to the breaking out of the war, had interested himself in military affairs under conditions exactly the same as those for which we are trying to make some provision at this time. Because of that training, because of that education, if you like, that he achieved, Sir Arthur Currie was fitted for the task which fell upon his shoulders later on. I can call to mind dozens of officers who when they went overseas, found that they were peculiarly fitted for the service that was laid upon their shoulders, but in every case they were men trained under the modified military training in our militia service. There is nothing militaristic about that; Canada has never had anything approaching a militaristic programme or system. My hon. friend says that we want to go back to prewar days and enter into this militaristic programme. We did not have a militaristic-programme in Canada in pre-war days. We certainly had not in the years 1911 to 1914, and my hon. friend will surely not charge his own friends with carrying out a militaristic programme from 1896 to 1911. Any man with any common sense knows perfect ly well that the militia expenditure of this country has been exceedingly modest from Confederation down.
My hon. friend says that it is quite desirable that some drill should be given; that it may have a good physical effect, and he is prepared to admit that it has an educative effect. But he .turns on us as soon as we propose just a moderate sum to provide for drill, and he charges us with trying to enforce militarism. Then he loads the whole responsibility of the commencement of this war upon those of us who have in mind a militia system in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I rise to object
to that interpretation of my remarks? I loaded the responsibility on the diplomatists, the militarists and the large business interests.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend included almost everybody except himself. He referred to us who were supporting the minister and to the minister's proposals. He likened the minister to the European militarists; he classed the minister and them

in the same group, and -then, of course, he went on to suggest that it was the militarists of Europe who brought on the war. But he failed to acknowledge this, that had poor France, faced with this huge military autocracy of Germany, not had a very severe system of conscriptive military service, she would not have been able to keep the Germans out of Paris for a week after the declaration of war. Under a militia system such as we have in this country, France would have been an easy simple victim to the military spirit and aggresion of Germany. We are not responsible for Germany, Russia, Austria, nor any of those other countries, but we are responsible for Canada.
My hon. friend says:	Let us wait until
we see whether the League of Nations is going to be a success. He made no argument; he gave no reasons; he simply offered some sweeping generalities. Supposing the League of Nations is not a success, we must, arguing from what he suggests, have a military force, because that was the suggestion in his remarks although it was not definitely stated. That is not the question at all. If the League of Nations is a success, each member of that League is going to be called upon to contribute at least something towards maintaining the dignity, power and control of that League. That provision is contained in the Treaties which have been laid before the various countries for ratification, and, therefore, we must have some moderate form of military power. All that we are asking for in these Estimates is that provision shall be made for-what shall I call it? It appeals to me as a skeleton army where some of our-men may give a great deal of their time willingly and without pay and may be brought together year after year for training.
The particular item under discussion is cadet corps. I know of no better discipline, education and training for young boys of .from twelve to fourteen or fifteen years of age than the cadet system of Canada. Not only is it physically sound and good, but there is this value to it. Young boys of that age, growing up from small boyhood and beginning to realize that they are budding into manhood, are mentally in a state where they easily drift and go astray. Every man who has had anything to do with boys or who has not forgotten his boyhood knows that. There is nothing better for a boy than to be held, not under forced restraint, but under restraint to which he willingly submits, and the cadet system supplies in

a most admirable manner this training and education.
But in the closing remarks of iny hon. friend, who, I notice, has now left his seat, he made a most extraordinary argument. His argument, in favour of no military training at all was that men from a country in which there is no military training at all have stronger combative forces.


Mr. LALOK:: More initiative.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -and more initiative than those who are trained in a country where military discipline obtains. - That is the very thing he was denouncing a moment before. He was denouncing the pugnacious spirit, the combative spirit; yet he would not have training because in that way the combative spirit develops. Why, in the name of common sense, should we be asked to put up, not only with my hon. friend's lectures, but with such piffling argument as that?
What I desire to say in rising in support of this item is, not that we should embark upon any great programme of militarism, but that we should retain in Canada, a reasonable, skeleton military force under the voluntary militia system; that we should not engage in nor embark upon wide expenditures in that line, but that reasonably generous support should be given to those citizens who devote after all to the militia about 75 per cent of 'their time, free of all charge to the country. Surely the country can at least pay the actual out-of-pocket expenses these men incur in connection with military training, and that is virtually all that we are being asked to do in this Estimate. I grant that there may be some points upon which hon. gentlemen opposite may reasonably differ from us, and these are fair matters for debate, but I resent the sweeping charge of my hon. friend that .simply because we stand behind these Estimates we belong to that obnoxious class known as European militarists.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: limited to sharp shooting and specializing in machine gun practice and -work of that kind. My hon. friend from Brome may be surprised to	know that the	girlsin the schools of our province are trained in	calisthenics	and
physical exercises and military drill just the same as the boys in the public schools, as is well known to the great majority of the members of this House. I regret exceedingly to find my good friend the member for Brome delivering the same sort of stuff that was handed out to the people of Canada before the war by the Rev. Dr. Starr Jordan and Ithe Rev. J. A. Macdonald.


Peter McGibbon: It was not my intention to say anything in this debate, but I resent some of the remarks thalt have been made on the other side of the House. I do not think it is fair to represent members on this side of the House as militarists, and it is not fair or Itrue to say that we have not learned the lessons of this war. For two days now we have been listening to a repetition, almost word for word, of the speeches that were delivered in this House on military matters in the years previous to 1914, and if there is one class of speech thalt hon. mem'beTS on the other side of the House ought to be willing to forget, surely it is that class. History has shown that hon. gentlemen opposite were totally incapable of appreciating the significance of the events of their time. There is not a man living to-day with a son of public school age who would not disown his boy if after the experience of the last five years he put the same construction on these matters as hon. gentlemen opposite do to-day. They tell us we have not learned the lessons of the war. Certainly we are not going to sit at their feet to learn the lessons of Ithe last four or five years, and when they tell us here this afternoon that we are incapable of learning from the experience of the last four or five years, I say they are talking about things of which they are incapable of giving an opinion of any value. Who in Canada to-day believes that if England had been prepared for the war in 1914, as she should have been prepared, the war would ever have taken place? It is the opinion of a great many leading military men in England and in France that even if England in the days just before the war had taken a more decided step and answered in the affirmative the telegram sent by the President of France to King George, the great

war would have never been started. It is absurd to say in the face of a modest sum like this that we are starting this country on a military career. The leader of the Opposition yesterday objected very strenuously and worked himself up into a pitch of passion against these military Estimates, and in those Estimates he included the money we are granting for pensions to widows and orphans.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I took no exception whatever to such expenditures. My objection was taken exclusively to the items that appear in these Militia and Defence Estimates.


Peter McGibbon: I submit
that he included them in the total which he quoted to the House, and included also the sums to be voted for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I took no exception to those items.


Peter McGibbon: He says
now that he took no exception to them. I say that he figured up a total of $50,000,000 or $60,000,000. I want to tell him that this country is prepared to go even further in the matter of pensions for widows and orphans and for the disabled soldiers. He also objected very strenuously to certain sums provided in these Estimates for training, and said "We have an army of trained men." Yes, we have, and that army saved the honour of Canada in the last five years. And it ill becomes any member in this House to stand up and berate them for the paltry sum of money that is put into these Estimates for carrying on the work of the department. Hon. gentlemen tell us that we have an army of trained men and we do not need any more training. I ask the leader of the Opposition this question: Does he think that the work of these men is never done? I say, Mr. Chairman, that their work is completed so far as this generation is concerned, and it lies with this House and this country to make provision for training osiers in case of necessity. ,It is all very well to talk about cutting down Estimates, but I notice that when there was trouble in Winnipeg a year ago it was the soldiers to whom this Government and the country turned. So soon as the hour of danger is passed, however, then there is nothing but a strong advocacy of retrenchment, and a decrying of everything that appertains to the training of. our youth. Hon. gentlemen decry the proposal to give these boys even a couple of weeks training in the

summertime; and they are opposed to putting up decent barracks for the men to live in and giving to the officers the necessary money [DOT]which they have to spend in order to keep up their regiments. They want to give only a portion of that money. I would ask the 'House to get down to actual facts. Is there a man here rwho is willing to go out and do the work that these men are doing for the same money? If there is then let him undertake the task. I say it is not becoming to any member of this House to sit here and ask the men who saved the

~	1 ~	loot -fitro v/aaro whilp flthPTR
were staying at home, to be prepared to save it again in the future. It ill behooves any member to say that we should make no provision for the training of new men but should let those who have carried the burden for the last five years carry it in the future. That, Mr. Chairman, is not the spirit that should quicken hon. members. To my mind, the House should approach this question with different feelings. I, as much as any one else, would deprecate the establishment of a military party in Canada; but the man, the party, or the country that does not to-day make at least some provision for self-defence has not, in my humble opinion, learned the lessons from the experience of the last four or five years.


Mr. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Chairman, I desire to detain the House just a moment. First of all, I should like to say a word with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) concerning the advantages of cadet training, and the inference, from his remarks, that the trained cadets in this country did not show up as well in the late war as those who were not trained. I want to refer to one school I know something of where the boys were trained as cadets. Of those boys that had training, one hundred per cent of the physically fit enlisted fox overseas service and made up a portion otf that 44,000 to whom the Minister of Militia has referred; and a very large number of them, I regret to say, will not come back. On the side of advantage generally which the cadet training has, I would say without hesitation that there is nothing that is better for any boy's physical development and future manhood than such training. There is nothing that so much tends to make a true man of a boy as the training he gets as a cadet when going to school; and if this country could aim at having every boy trained as a cadet it would go a long way towards developing
the right type of Canadian man. There is no question that the Canadian soldier, whether trained or untrained, was a good soldier; but to infer that the man wh'o had training was less of a soldier than the man who had not, is to fly in the very face of what every one knows to be an absolute fact. Turning to what has been said by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and what was repeated this afternoon and yesterday so frequently in regard to the whole question of the militia of Canada, the charge has been hurled across the House that these membQrG ciiTvnorting the Minister of Militia are militarists. It has been suggested that we are following in the footsteps of the German junkers, and all that sort of thing, and that we have failed to appreciate the fact that ias a result of militarism 60,000 of the best of Canada's sons are sleeping in France. Well, Sir, I resent that imputation. We do not fail, nor have we ever failed, to appreciate the fact that
60,000	of Canada's sons are now at rest in France. We fully realize the fact; and if Canada and England had not listened to the snivelling pacificists in the days before the war, there would have been fewer Canadian sons sleeping in France to-day than there actually are. It was the very fact that the counsel of such men as the late Lord Roberts was wholly ignored, and the fact that the British Empire was in a state of unpreparednees, that brought on that awful international condition that ultimately resulted in universal disaster. Had the British Empire, at the outbreak of the war, had one-eighth of the trained men which it was finally necessary that she should place on the field, they would have ended the war in less than one year, the national debt about which we hear .so much would have been very much smaller than it is, and many of the boys who ultimately gave their lives for our sake would have been spared to us. Just one wiord further, Mr. Chairman. It has been said that Canada is a law-abiding country and that there is no possibility of war with our neighbours to the south. Well, it is true that Canada is a law-abiding country, and it is equally true that we are living beside a nation that is law-abiding. But if we are going to carry our law-abiding precepts to the point suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite, why do we not propose that every town and city and village in Canada should disband its police force? The people in the city of Ottawa are law-abiding. Nevertheless, we see many uniformed men patrolling the streets

all the time. The people in the -United States are also law-abiding; yet there is a national guard in every State ol the Union. Why is that? The reason is simple. Tfaerfj is in every country under the sun a certain element that would break the law, and it is the duty of the State to see to it that law-abiding people are protected; and they can be protected only by having some sort of organized force for the purpose. Will hon. gentlemen opposite seriously contend that by passing these Estimates we shall develop militarism in this country? If they do they insult the intelligence not only of this House but of the people of the country, and they are implying something which gentlemen on this side of the House have every right to resent. Personally I strongly resent the implication that because we are supporting the Minister of Militia in regard to these Estimates we advocate militarism, develop German junkerism and-the greatest insult of all-fail to appreciate the great sacrifice made by our boys in the late war. A more contemptible suggestion could not be offered to dozens of men who are sitting in this House, and for my own part I repeat -again that I -resent the insult with all the force which I can put into my words and with all the feeling I have in my being.


William Cameron Edwards: 
The CHAIEMAN (Mr. Steele):: Order.
I will have -to -ask the hon. gentleman to adhere to 'the item under discussion which relates to the cadet service.
An hon. MEMBEE: Let hilm go on. -


William Cameron Edwards: Thanks very much to
you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks also to hon. members opposite for their generous
suggestion Liifctt J- oiiuuiu continue, x tninik,
Mr. 'Chairman, you are absolutely right in your ruling. However, I was just about through with that line of argument when you very properly brought me to task. At the same time I was about to remark that the need for preparation was shown by the report made by high officials in the British Admiralty that if they had had three more ships at the great fight off Jutland the 'German navy would have been wiped off the seas entirely, which would have resulted in immensely shortening the war and in saving thousands and thousands of lives. Now, ISir, I wish to say in view of the many suggestions offered in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to that emergency, all of which suggestions time has proved to be false, or to be wrong, we should be very careful in future before we accept advice coming from such doubtful sources. That is how I feel with respect to advice which is offered by hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).
In regard to this cadet service I want to say that while I believe there may be some very strong differences of opinion in regard to holding the annual militia drill in this country at the present time, I just as sincerely believe that you have the majority of public opinion behind the cadet service; that from one end of this country to the other people are behind that particular service. At any rate that is my experience. I have heard different expressions of opinion with respect to the annual drill but, speaking in all sincerity, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that of the expressions I have heard in regard to the cadet service nine-tenths have been in favour of it, which I regard as a magnificent idea. I think that the discipline which these boys obtain through this short service is a splendid thing for them; and speaking personally I would like to have -pen this item very much increased, or enlarged, even if the money had to be taken

from some other item. I repeat, I believe this service is a splendid thing, that it is entitled to the support of members of this House generally, and that it has the support of the great body of public opinion throughout the country.


Hugh Guthrie: There does not appear to be much objection to the item although the discussion has wandered very far afield, and perhaps now we can agree on it and get on to something else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies-$50,000.
['There does not appear to be much objection to the item although the discussion has wandered very far afield, and perhaps now we can agree on it and get on to something else.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall have to take some exception to this item so that it had better stand.
At Six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.
Militia and Defence-contingencies, $50,000.


Mr. FIELDING:: How does the amount of this item compare with the similar item in pre-war years?


Hugh Guthrie: , Last year the amount voted was $25,000; in 1918-19 it was $5,337. The normal amount used for the purpose in pre-war years was $50,000. It covers all such items as telephone messages, telegrams, legal expenses, allowances to officiating clergymen at permanent force stations, medals, guards of honour, escorts, salutes, State and military funerals, and all unforeseen expenses not provided for elsewhere.


William Stevens Fielding: If we could get along last year with $25,000 what is our difficulty in getting along with the amount this year?


Hugh Guthrie: Last year a good many of these expenditures were probably charged to demobilization. A great many of them were directly connected with the war, or were so treated during the war period. So with all classes of militia expenditure. Wherever barracks were used for Canadian Expeditionary troops, all repairs and things of that kind were charged to War Appropriation, not to the annual Militia vote. This vote is to cover all unforseen miscellaneous expenditure.


William Stevens Fielding: Could the hon. gentleman give a rough subdivision of these items?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I have no subdivision of them. The amount is lumped

in the way I have given it. I think that is about as nearly as we can estimate it. It is irregular, unforeseen expenditure; it is in its nature contingent.


William Stevens Fielding: When I said "subdivision" I meant "classification." For instance, it might be interesting to know how much we invested in allowances to officiating clergymen during a given year. Then there are -the items: "legal expenses," "guards of honour", "escorts", "salutes"; could my hon. friend tell us roughly what sum will be required for each of these branches of the service? With regard to the item of "legal expenses", for example, there is the fact to be considered that -we have our Department of Justice; that each branch of the Government has its legal advisor. I take it for granted that there must be some good reason for this part of the item, but one is naturally curious to know what legal expenses are contemplated.


Hugh Guthrie: Legal expenses are incurred at times by various departments at outside points. During my brief experience in this department I have on several occasions had to employ counsel in various parts of Canada to represent the Department of Militia. We can very often get a local man for $5 or $10, whereas the cost of sending a man from Ottawa would be very much greater. Hardly a day passes without there being some legal questions to settle in some part of Canada in connection with which we employ some local legal practitioner. As to the officiating clergymen at permanent force stations, there are Protestant and Roman Catholic clergymen in attendance and the basis upon which they are paid is at the rate of fifty cents per man per year.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not question the propriety of paying clergymen; the department needs the benefit of their services, and I would not like to deprive them of that benefit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: During the
afternoon some hon. members opposite seemed to express the view that we of the Opposition were not wholly in sympathy with even legitimate expenditure for the militia at this time. I think it is only proper to point out that the criticism that we have made of the Militia Estimates relates to the amounts that are brought in at this particular time. Our criticism has not been directed against the making of reasonable expenditures for proper militia purposes; it has been wholly against the expenditures of large sums of money on

this account while we have appropriations in the Estimates for the purposes of demobilization also. When the work of demobilization is completed, we may well consider grounds for incurring further expenditures, meanwhile expenditures cep* tainly should not be charged to demobilization where appropriations are voted for specific purposes. As every one knows, the reasons that have existed in the past for apprehending danger from a military point of view do not now exist; there is not the same need for alarm in the matter of our defence at home. We on this side nffo-r rv? opposition to legitimate expenditures for the needs of the country, but where it is evident that the expenditures are extravagant we feel justified in asking the Government, at a time when they are putting extra taxes on the people to cut down suoh expenditures. Now, this is an item of $50,000 to cover miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, allowances to officiating clergymen at permanent force stations, legal expenses, guards of honour, escorts, salutes, and so on. There is nothing in that whole programme that is vital; the country would not suffer one iota if for a year we abolished salutes altogether or got rid of some of the escorts, and extras of that kind in respect of which we can well afford to economize. These things constitute the fuss and feathers and the display which are more or less unessential. The amount asked is $25,000 in excess of what was asked last year. Unless the minister can show more conclusively the necessity for increasing the amount to $50,000, I will move that the amount of the Estimate be reduced from $50,000 to $25,000-an amount quite sufficient for the miscellaneous purposes cited here.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry that I cannot give the details my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) requested, but I can give some information with regard to the various matters. Of course this is only an estimate; if we do not have the money we have no way of paying for the service. Legal expenses which crop up are all in the nature of unforeseen expenses. I do not know when they may come up. It may be that for a year there will be no legal expenses, though that is unlikely. As the committee is well aware, guards of honour are furnished to His Excellency the Governor General and to the Lieutenant Governors of the various provinces of Canada. A guard of honour costs in the neighbourhood of $100 to $125. An escort is a little more expensive; it costs probably about $200, and it is
furnished to the Governor General only. On a military funeral a limit of expense of about $65 or $70 is set. State funerals are very rare, and when they occur, they involve a large amount of money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister contemplate any State funerals?


Hugh Guthrie: We do not know when they will happen. The last one occurred quite recently. It is one of the things that we desire to provide for; it is a contingency, and the money, if not required, is not wasted it merely remains in the ap'propria-tion. It is quite possible that $25,000 might suffice; it is quite likely that $25,000 might not suffice. No waste is involved in this item; all the expenditure must go before the Auditor General. The legal expenditure, as such, must go to the Department of Justice and be certified there before it is paid. Therefore, my hon. friend's amendment does not involve one feature of saving. The appropriation is just as secure in its present form-and it is just an estimate -as it would be if the amendment carried. I do not see any object or reason for my hon. friend's amendment. If he objects to guards of honour or escorts and says that they should be dispensed with, he should say so; but on a contingent item on which one can make only a guess, to say that his guess is nearer than my guess is rather ridiculous. In pre-war times $50,000 was the usual amount appropriated, and it was not always spent. The year immediately preceding the war we spent $51,000; last year the appropriation was $25,000, but I am not sure what was spent. As far as we can estimate, $50,000 is a safe sum to put into the Estimates, and what expenditure takes place will be scrutinized by the Government and the officials of the Government, and the vote will be carefully administered. I do not see what the object of the amendment of the leader of the Opposition really is, unless it be a demonstration of some kind,-there is no principle involved in it. What should be stricken out? What should we dispense with? If the hon. member will express himself and let the committee know what he objects to in the proposal, we shall then know how to deal with the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend's reasoning amounts to anything, I do not see why he should not have made the item $100,000 instead of $50,000.


Hugh Guthrie: We considered $50,000
would be sufficient.,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose
of an .appropriation is to put some restriction on a department in the matter of designated expenditures. I take direct exception to haying for this particular year so many guards of honour and salutes and to paying clergymen for officiating at functions of the permanent force as outlined in tire details of this Estimate. When we come to a different time it may perhaps be well to have some of these decorations, but decorations I think they are. Laslt year, His Excellency had such guards of honour as he needed. I do not think the country lacked guards of honour or salutes, and if $25,000 was sufficient for last year, it is enough for this year, and anything over that is just a waste of public funds.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Would the hon.
genltleman recommend dispensing with a salute to a foreign warship which sailed into a Canadian port which was garrisoned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not hesitate to say that there are appropriate times for salutes, the minister has intimated that in all possibility $25,000 will give the department plenty of funds for salutes and the like.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I notice the actual expenditure laslt year, according to the Auditor General's Report, was not $25,000, but $17,550.31, a very large part of which, namely, $9,814.85 is charged up against stationery. I would regard thalt as a very large amount to expend on stationery for the office. But if the statement has been made that last year $25,000 was spent, there must be some error in the statement or else I have not found it correctly in the Auditor General's Report. I am looking at page P-7 of (the Auditor General's Report in which the statement for contingencies is detailed. If $17,000 odd was enough for last year, $25,000 should be ample for this year.


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed that
the stationery item is a correct item. It covers the supply of stationery to all the units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


John Howard Sinclair: That
does not alter the fadt that the total amount of contingencies during the past year, the year represented in the Auditor General's Report, was only about $17,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out Ito the minister that item 106 relates

to printing and stationery, and $70,000 is asked for under that heading.


Hugh Guthrie: That is departmental
printing and stationery. This was a contingent item; the stationery was supplied to the different units for their use during war time.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived: yeas, 26; nays, 41.
Item agreed to on division.
Customs dues, $50;00'0.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This covers customs
dues which we have on our imports, and it is really a matter of bookkeeping, taking the amount out of the Militia Department and handing it over to the Customs Department. Prior to Ithe -war the appropriation for this service was generally from $100,000 to $125,000. But we have now on hand a pretty large stock of clothing and stores, and we shall not have to imporit many of the supplies which in ordinary years we have to import. It is, therefore, considered that $50,000 will cover the customs dues on the imports that we have to make during the coming year. These are largely in the way of imports for the manufacture of ammunition. This item, during the war, was charged to War Appropriation.


John Howard Sinclair: I think I am correct in saying that the department has been employing customs brokers for making entries at the ports where these goods come in. I am surprised to find charges of that kind in the Auditor General's report. We have a War Purchasing Commission, and a purchasing agent, I believe, in the Department of Militia. We have .also customs officers. With this galaxy of Government officers I do not think it ought to be necessary to employ the services of customs brokers to make the entries. Will the minister explain why these customs brokers are employed?


Hugh Guthrie: All our purchases are made by the W.ar Purchasing Commission; the department merely makes the requisition. I am informed that only at one point Is a customs broker employed, and that is at the port of Quebec where the majority of our purchases are entered for the Dominion arsenal there. We have been in the habit of employing a customs broker there who receives the magnificent sum of $1 per entry. It is considered more economical to employ him than to have the work done

by our own officers. If we did it ourselves it would entail the employment probably of an extra clerk. We are simply doing what many business men do; it is looked upon as good business to employ a customs broker at the port where our chief business is done.
Dominion Arsenal, Lindsay, $258,112.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How does the minister justify this expenditure at * this time?


Hugh Guthrie: For a number of years *nqct. n11 >* reserve supply of ammunition has been based upon a report which was made to the Government of Canada by Lord French after he had made a complete survey of our 'whole military situation. In his report he recommended that we should maintain a reserve supply of 90,000,000 rounds of small arm ammunition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When was that report made?


Hugh Guthrie: In 1910, before the
change of Government. We have endeavoured ot maintain that as a reserve, but during the war that standard was not maintained. I do not, suppose I .am making known any secret that I should not miake known when I say that to-day we have on hand between 35,000,000 and 40,000,000 rounds. The annual output has heretofore been estimated at 10,00,000 rounds. This year there is provision in the Estimates for .an output of 11,500,000 rounds. If our militia establishment was complete-it is not so, as I explained yesterday-it would utilize from 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 rounds, exclusive of what we supply to Dominion and provincial rifle associations. The annual supply to these associations, which are established by law .and by practice in this country, is from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 rounds. Allowing between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 rounds for the militia to be used in practice and drill, we would have a surplus each year of about 3,000,000 rounds. That, of course, would be added to our reserve stock, which it is our ultimate aim to bring up to the standard recommended by Lord French, but it will take some time to do it. We thought that if we entered upon a programme this year of 11,500,000 rounds, 5,500,000 to be made at Lindsay and 6,000,000 at Quebec, that was about all we could ask the House to consider at this time. We really should have a larger supply if we are to bring up our reserve within a reasonable time. However, as
this year may be a slack year in the expenditure of small arms ammunition, it is possible that our reserve may make a considerable gain. The item for the Lindsay arsenal represents what we believe will be the actual cost of manufacture. We have at Lindsay, Ontario, one of the best-equipped factories I suppose that can be found anywhere for the manufacture of this ammunition. The items which go to make up this cost are as follows: Wages, $153,000-we pay the union wage scale, upon schedules furnished by the Department of Labour-salaries for the officers in connection with the arsenal, $13,000; power and light, $10,000; water, $2,400; steam coal, $18,900; pea coal, $6,500; supplies, $50,312; fi eight, $3,000; office supplies, telephones, etc., $1,000; total, $258,112.


Jacques Bureau: Is the power for the Lindsay arsenal supplied by the Hydro-Electric?


Hugh Guthrie: Either that or a private company, but I think it is the Hydro.


Jacques Bureau: Hoiw much is paid for power?


Hugh Guthrie: If it is the Hydro.it will be the ordinary provincial rate. The rate is much higher in Ontario than in that part of the province of Quebec from which my hon. friend comes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is now the director of the Lindsay .arsenal? I understand that the late Coibneil Laffetty was director. Who replaced h'iffi on his death?


Hugh Guthrie: Colonel Lafferty was director at Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was he not direictor at Lindsay also?


Hugh Guthrie: During the war he was appointed superintendent, for a time, of both arsenals. A:t present the superintendent at Lindsay is Mr. Walters. I do not know his military rank, or whether he has any. He is spoken of as Professor Walters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men are employed at Lindsay a(t present?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not the exact figures, but I am informed about 230 men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it not a fact that the Quebec arsenal was quite 'Sufficient for our needs, except for a certain period during the war when 'munitions were urgently needed on the other side? In normal times would not the Quebec arsenal be 'amply sufficient .for the needs of our militia?


Hugh Guthrie: As between the tiwo arsenals I think Lindsay would be the better adapted, bult there are military reasons foT maintaining Ibbth arsenals. I believe the cbmstrudtion of the two .arsenals was advised by >a high military authority, for reasons whiteh are obvious. I believe that either one has the capacity to turn out a sufficient ontput in peace times. Neither of them i!s being operated to its capacity at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men are there at the Queibec airsenial?


Hugh Guthrie: At the present time neajrly 500. All Puir heavy ammunition and quick-firing ammunition, as well as a large part of our rifle ammunition, is made at Quebec. Lindi&ay only manufactures at present fem.aH arms ammunition; I do not think it has the equipment for making artillery ammunition.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed that the munitions turned out by 'the Quebec arsenal were highly commended by military authorities during the war. Is that a fact?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that our ammunition has been very highly commended, both that made at Quebec and that made at Lindsay. I doubt if any better ammunition is turned out anywhere.


Mr. MORPHY:: Are they making at
Lindsay a little device known as a steel charge or clip used by the soldier for holding a set of five cartridges for the certain and speedy filling of the magazine of the rifle in action ?


Hugh Guthrie: If I understand my hon. friend's question, he wants to know whether we are making steel charges.
Mr.	MORPHY:	At	Lindsay.Mr.	GUTHRIE:	I	understand	that	we
are making them at Lindsay.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: At Quebec also?
Mr.	GUTHRIE:	Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the price per
pound of the steel that is being used?
Mr.	GUTHRIE:	I	have not	got	these
particulars; I would have to communicate with Lindsay.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I should like to know
also what number of these clips are bing made this year.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the
clips are being manufactured at the rate of one to five cartridges, so that if we make five million cartridges w-e shall make one million clips.
(Mr. I.e.'nieux.]


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Uan I get the cost of
the manufacturing of these clips?


Hugh Guthrie: The information could be obtained, but I would have to communicate with Lindsay.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My main reason for asking this question is that in the constituency I have the honour to represent a man who manufactured these charges during the war lost "something like $50,000 because, as he alleges, the War Purchasing Commission compelled him to use steel at 14 cents a pound although, he further alleges, steel at 7j cents per pound was being used by other manufacturers. I desire this information in order to see exactly what has been and is being done at Lindsay. I want to know the quality of steel used there, and the price. I might also commend to the minister the circumstances of this case and request him to investigate it. The names and particulars he can obtain, and I should be glad if he would see whether or not there is any way of recompensing this man who claims that he sustained this tremendous loss through no fault of his own but by reason of the arbitrary conduct of the Government inspectors who, he alleges, showed favoritism to other firms. He is firm in the statement that he was not responsible in any way for the loss, which he says was due to a rigid inspection that was discriminatory, and to other unwarrantable conduct on the part of the departmental officials, by reason of which he has been brought to bankruptcy and practically put out of business.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot at the present moment give the particulars my hon. friend desires. My information is that this is the first time the matter has been brought to the attention of the department. It may have been brought before the War Purchasing Commission, but that would not necessarily bring it to the attention of the Militia Department. I can inform my hon. friend that the steel that is being used at Lindsay in the manufacture of these clips is purchased by the War Purchasing Commission itself and handed over to the Lindsay arsenal. I have no doubt I could secure the information by hon friend desires, and if he will write me a letter indicating the details which he would like to get I will undertake to obtain the information.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The minister can get all the details from the chairman of the War Purchasing Commission. All the fact* are

on file, but they say that they have no power to deal with the case at all.


Mr. CRERAR:: There is an increase in
this item, over the pre-war vote, of almost $500,000. Can the minister give some explanation as to the cause of this increase?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no doubt that
increase is due to increased cost of material and increased wages. Wages have been raised from time to time in accordance with the prevailing rates, and at present they are fixed by the Department of Labour. There has been a tremendous increase in wages as also in the cost of material, and I am satisfied that the difference in cost between manufacturing now and in pre-war times is attributable entirely to these two factors, labour and material.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does the minister think that it is wise to go ahead with the manufacture of this ammunition on a large scale under the present heavy increase in cost? Apparently there is no particular urgency for it in the next few years, and I would suggest that it might be worth while cutting down the output and thereby reducing the expenditure until we get 'back to normal costs.


Hugh Guthrie: I explained this as fully as I could a moment ago-I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the House at the time-and I do not think I can add anything to my statement. We are trying to make up our exhausted reserve. I suppose we might take chances, but I do not think it would be proper to do so. The Government is charged with responsibility in the matter, and I know that if we did not make up that reserve we would be properly 'blamable.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am still not satisfied with the explanation the minister has given.
Mr. 'GUTHRIE: I cannot give any better.	[DOT]


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I regret that. Nevertheless, every country is in the same position. I venture to say that all countries are exhausted after the war, and I think that the people will look with some apprehension upon this desire to continue our military expenditure in this respect on the basis that we maintained before the war.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been stated during the course of the debate, both yesterday and to-day, that all countries are reducing their military expenditures.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are increasing ours.


Hugh Guthrie: We are increasing it at a less ratio than any other country that took part in the war. Think of the United States, with $645,000,000 this year, including $40,000,000 for Air Service. And there is an increase above ours in Australia,-I do not know about New Zealand, but I can' make that statement in regard to Australia. There is an increase in Great Britain. I have no information regarding France, but I understand that she is taking no chances. Our increase is a modest one. Japan is ccrtaimy mcicasixig eiiumiuusiy. And as a matter of fact ours is not increased at all having regard to pre-war prices; considering pre-war prices, there is a positive decrease. I have tried to impress this fact on the committee, but I believe that there are people who will object no matter how low the expenditure goes. However low it may be they will want it lower, but we have reached what we regard as a reasonable minimum.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My information, obtained through the War Purchasing Commission, in connection with the matter of which I spoke a moment ago, is that they have anywhere from twenty to thirty millions of these steel clips on hand. If that is so, there is no justification whatever-assuming that these clips are available to the Militia Department-for manufacturing a million more at Lindsay. The discussion shows me clearly that there is overlapping and lack of co-operation between the War Purchasing Commission and the Militia Department, and I think it is my duty to call the minister's attention to what appears to me to be a serious case of over-production of material, apart altogether from the principle of the increase in manufacturing. I would ask the minister to look into this matter. If he does he will probably find that I am right; and if I am not right I can tell him now that this over-production has been urged as a reason why they did not do the square thing by the gentleman whom they drove into bankruptcy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend stated a moment ago that the arsenal at Lindsay was the result of a visit of Lord French.


Hugh Guthrie: No; I said the result of advice which the Government had received in regard to this question of establishing arsenals; I do not know that it was received from Lord French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend stated so positively, a moment ago.



Mr. 'GUTHRIE: No; we established the reserve of ammunition on his report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was in the Government when Lord French came to Canada. That was in 1910. I remember his visit very well. The Government that succeeded was rather inactive, as this arsenal was only started long after the war commenced. At the time, it struck several that it was something else than the report or advice of Lord French which institgated the building of the arsenal at Lindisay. Everybody at that time thought there was some rivalry between the gentleman who was at the head of the Militia Department and some other official, and naturally he thought his own constituency might have the advantage, if it is an advantage, of securing this large arsenal. I am informed-I am not much of a military man myself-that, under normal conditions and in normal times, Canada can well 'be satisfied with the arsenal at Quebec for all stores that will 'be required in Eastern or Central Canada. Why should we keep 250 men at Lindsay and 500 at Quebec during peace times? My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) will admit with me that it is too much. He should receive some inspiration to-day from his distinguished colleague the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames). That hon. gentleman comes here as the authorized representative of the League of Nations. Officially he occupies a seat in the Bureau of the League of Nations, and in day or so he will ask this Parliament to vote quite a large sum of money as being Canada's share of the cost of maintenance of the League of Nations. I, for my part, intend to support the hon. member for St. Antoine in that move, because I believe it iff a praiseworthy one. I stand for the League of Nations. But I do not stand for too much militaristic display. Really, my hon. friend does not seem to 'be in earnest when he asks from this committe sufficient to maintain the war equipment and the war display. Let us stand by the old arsenal at Quebec, which received so much commendation during the war from the Imperial authorities, and let us close the Lindsay arsenal.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. gentleman
speaks on the question of the Quebec arsenal and the Lindsay arsenal. Only a few days ago I had a pretty influential delegation from the city of Lindsay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, you will get delegations.


Hugh Guthrie: They suggested that from the strategic point of view it was the best place for the arsenal.
Mr. iBUREAU:	They must have done
so from the patriotic point of view.


Hugh Guthrie: It is remarked that it
is at a point farther removed from the frontier, less subject to outside attack, and more modern in equipment, than the arsenal at Quebec. I did not suggest that General French had said anything about the arsenal but I said that my information was that the Imperial authorities had suggested the propriety of having more than a single arsenal. The Minister of Militia at this time, the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), in his wisdom located that arsenal at the city of Lindsay. I have no doubt it is a very excellent location for such an establishment. But in the meantime my view is that the two establishments can be carried on without any very great loss. I believe we could consolidate them; we could manufacture the whole of this ammunition at Lindsay or at Quebec. But there are military reasons for maintaining two establishments. A-s soon as we reach a normal surplus probably the output of both these institutions will be materially cut down; but we have not got that reserve on hand yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was the arsenal at Lindsay manufacturing small-arms ammunition during 1919-20?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Out of what
vote did the department pay for that service?


Hugh Guthrie: We took it out of the
War Appropriation and demobilization vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How does
the minister justify these payments for the work at these arsenals out of the demobilization vote?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose it was done
when the war was still upon us. The demobilization vote was to take care of war obligations. I suppose in one view the war was over on the 11th November, 1918.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It certainly
was.


Hugh Guthrie: It certainly was not,
because our troops entered Germany as an armed force and remained -there long after the armistice. I think it was quite reasonable to charge that, as it was charged, to

the 'War Appropriation. But the time does come when we must consider the war over, and this year I have 'thought it far more proper to charge this to the militia and let the country see just what the militia is costing. Last year many of these votes were charged to the War Appropriation, this year they are being charged straight to the militia vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the Minister of Militia, at the time, inform the *House that these expenditures were to be taken out of the demobilization vote?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not, but I am
satisfied that if the question- had been asked it would have been so answered because no appropriation was made for the manufacture of these munitions last year. The expenditure could not come from anywhere else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These two expenditures, one at Quebec and one at Lindsay, should be taken together. For the arsenal at Lindsay the Government are asking for an appropriation of $258,112, and for the arsenal at Quebec $532,512, both for the same purpose, the manufacturing of small-arms ammunition. That makes a total of $790,000 that the country is being asked to contribute for the manufacture of small-arms ammunition at this time. According to the Government's own statement the total expenditure for this purpose in the year before the war was $300,000.
In other words the Government is asking Parliament to-day to vote $490,000 more for the manufacture of small-arms ammunition than was asked from Parliament in the year preceding the war. That, Mr. Chairman, is an increase of expenditure that, to my mind, is not only unjustifiable but outrageous, and if the ministry will not listen to the suggestions that have been made we shall be obliged by a vote to record our opinion in favour of cutting that expenditure down. I therefore would move that this item be reduced by $150,000, and when we come to the vote for the Quebec arsenal I shall suggest a reduction in that expenditure of $250,000, thus endeavouring to save the country $400,000 on the manufacture of small-arms munition this year I 'think that if we asked to decrease this expenditure by even half a million that would not be demanding too much in the way of reduction. When the minister speaks of a report by Lord French on the necessity of keeping a reserve of ammunition, he knows very well that Lord French was one of those British officers who believed in the near approach of war and an 236J
impending menace, and that he was naturally anxious that the different countries of the Empire should have a substantial reserve of small-arms ammunition. But if Lord French came to this country to-day he would not make a report of that kind, as the minister well knows. The necessity for a reserve to-day and the necessity for a reserve before the war are two entirely different things. Besides, there is plenty of time to make good this reserve. The minister, I venture to say, does not contemplate any emergency requiring the use of small-arms ammunition within the next few years, and there must be a great quantity of this ammunition somewhere about at the present time as the result of supplies that were accumulated during the war. I therefore move that this item be reduced by $150,000.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend points
to the amount that was spent before the war and the amount that is spent now. I think that the estimate before the war was over ten million rounds, and the cost of it now is just about double what it was. I have given the reasons-the cost of material and the cost of labour have doubled. I do not share my hon. friend's views as to whether we should have a reserve or not. My own view, and that of the Government, is. that, we should maintain the reserve. I do not know where my hon. friend gets his knowledge of what Lord French would, do if he were here to-day. I know what he did when he was here and what report he made, and he came here at the instance of the Government of which my hon. friend was a member. I fancy that if he came here to-day he would, be just as sane in his view, and would recommend a substantial reserve notwithstanding the increased cost. I have just as much right to assume that, as my hon. friend has to make the rather foolish assumption he made.
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the matter with my hon. friends opposite?


Jacques Bureau: If we are to take into
consideration all the circumstances I do not see that the Minister of Militia has any right to characterize the assertion1 of my leader, or the assumption which he made, as "foolish." I think it is foolish to double in time of peace the expenditure incurred in time of war, and it is still more foolish to assume that even an expert in military matters would do things that do not appeal at all to the common sense of ordinary per-

sons. We are not engaged in battle at the present time; this is a time of peace; we are considering these matters in Parliament; and I think our common sense view of things is just as sane as is any recommendation that Lord French might make under the existing circumstances.
Amendment of Mr. King nega-
9 p.m. tived: Yeas 39, nays 49.


Jacques Bureau: I was paired with the hon. member for Lanard (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. TURGEON:: I was paired with the
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was paired with the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). Had .1 voted I would have voted for the t amendment.


Mr. BLAKE:: I was paired with the hon. -member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not customary to
announce the pairs where no vote is recorded, because the names of those who vote do not appear.


William Stevens Fielding: I am paired for the remainder olf the session with the right hon. the Prime Minister, and I would like to have that understood.


Mr. CAHILL:: I wish to ask the minister if i't Is the intention of the Government to continue the .manufacture otf this ammunition in the future on the same, or practically the same basis as at the present time? Is that the policy of the Government?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. For the time being, so far as I can see, thalt will be the pollidy of the Government, at all events until we reach the necessary reserve supply.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the necessary reserve supply?


Hugh Guthrie: In small-arms ammunition, ninety million roundte is the reserve. We now have on hand between thirty-five and forty million. We expect to manufacture this year eleven and a half million rounds and to put from two to three millions to reserve, perhaps more. We will have at least that quantity, I think, after supplying the demands of provincial rifle associations and after supplying our troops for practice purposes,-that is, those troops that train.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it, then, the intention of the Government to go on expending money at approximately this rate for the / next fifteen or twenty years? .


Hugh Guthrie: I would not like to say that It will! Ibe 'the policy olf the Government for twenty years, but I will say, for two years.
Dominion Arsenal, Quebec, $532,512.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may as well move a't once that this litem be reduced by $250,000.


Jacques Bureau: I understand there was to be a joint discussion of items 98 and 99, and the latter Item refers to the Quebec Arsenal. May I aisk 'the minister ilf It'he Ross Rifle factory is in any way connected with the manufacture off munitions or fire arms, and wbdther it is 'being used by the Government for any military purpose just now?


Hugh Guthrie: It is not used for any
manufacturing purpose. The only military purpose we contemplate using it for at the present time is storage. I do not know what ultimately will be done with it.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that after
Ithe Ross rifle factory ceased manufacturing Ross rifles it was leased to some company which engaged in the manufacture of firearms.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Revolvers. .


Jacques Bureau: The rental was $300,000 a year. Since then the machinery which was in the Ross rifle factory has been scrapped without discrimination. My information is thalt this machinery, which was of an expensive character and could have been sold at a higher price than that paid for it, was, under the instruction and supervision of a gentleman named, I think, Colonel Fisher, dismantled, hammered down Ito scrap and shipped to Colonel Fisher's foundry in New Brunswick, at a certain price, by whom fixed I do not know. The name of the foundry, I believe, in which he is interested ,or of which he is the owner is the Enterprise Foundry of Sackville, New Brunswick. No tenders were asked for in connection with the disposal of the machinery. I was Itold by reliable persons who were in the Ross rifle factory that they with their own eyes saw the machinery disposed of as I have stated under the orders of this Mr. Fisher and his son, who were at the head of the factory, Has the minister any knowledge of thalt?

I would like to know whether it is true that at the time it was decided to do away with the Boss rifle factory appraisers were appointed to establish the value of the different machines and Ito determine at what price they could be sold. Answers given to questions which I put in the House give some information with regard to this matter. I am told thalt the superintendent to whom I have referred was both purchaser and vendor in this transaction.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not much knowledge 0\f the matter to which my hon. friend has referred. If he will left his question stand over until a more appropriate item is being considered I will give him the information. My general knowledge on the subject is that a business man named Fisher from the Lower Provinces was appointed to dispose of the equipmenlt of the Ross factory. I do not know the terms upon which he was (appointed, though I understand that he was acting without salary, merely on paymenlt of expenses or something of that kind. But I will get my hon. friend the information.


Jacques Bureau: If I get an opportunity to discuss the matter further, all right. But I do not see any other item in the militia Estimates under which I could discuss it.


Hugh Guthrie: It would really come under the item "War Appropriation." It was in oomnection with that that the factory was sold.


Jacques Bureau: I consent that the question stand, on the condition that I get the information.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived; yeas, 39; nays, 50.
Item agreed to on division.
Engineer services and Works, $705,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister give some explanation of this item?


Hugh Guthrie: This item is somewhat modest considered with the similar item in pre-war times. Before the war the item was $1,522,000; this year it is only $705,000. The item is to cover all expenditure for construction and repairs to buildings, including the Royal Military Oollege and Dominion arsenals, except the restoration of buildings altered for war purposes, which will be paid from Demobilization Appropriation. It includes installation of water, gas and sewerage, telegraph, heating system^, and lighting plants, and the purchase of articles coming under the head of "engineer fixtures." It covers also advertising for tenders for engineer services, pay and travelling expenses of superintendent of works .and his assistants at Quebec, the supervisor of works and his staff at the Royal Military College, and the supervisor of works and carpenter at Winnipeg. The items are quite lengthy; they are arranged
according to military districts. Following are the Estimates for engineer services and works:
Military
District No. Headquarters	Amount.
1	London	$1*5,0002	Toronto	
35,0003	Kingston	
25,0004	Montreal	
20,0005	Quebec	
OO.O'OO6	Halifax	
30,0007	St. John	
8,000lft	Winnipeg	
15,00011	Victoria	
14,00012	Calgary	
7,00013	Regina	
8,00.0Esquimalt Garrison	
18,000Royal Military College	
24,000
Ottawa services, engineer services at Ottawa, carried out at headquarters, maintenance and upkeep of drill hall, ordnance stores, magazine and
rifle range	 10,000
Petawawa camp, ordinary repairs and
works	 18,000
Halifax garrison, ordinary repairs and
works	 90,000
Quebec defences, ordinary repairs and '
works (revote)	 5,000
Esquimalt defences, ordinary repairs
and works,	(revote)	 5,000
Valcartier camp, upkeep and contingencies	 3,000
Borden camp, upkeep and contingencies		..	5,000
Headquarters reserve, to cover cost of
upkeep	 85,000
Total	$600,000
Then there are the following speieial items:
Halifax defences: (revote)	$ 50,000
Upkeep and contingencies, and
(1)	To construct at Connaught battery concrete emplacement for three lights and directing station,
(2)	To construct concrete engineroom and ventilators for tank room,
(3)	Sandwich battery, to erect concrete cartridge store.
Quebec walls:
General repairs to citadel walls.. 50,000
Halifax pavements:
To provide for part payment for paving Prince, Brunswick, Sack-ville and Cunard streets	 30,000
Rifle ranges generally:
To provide for new ranges if required, and any large additions that may be found necessary and not otherwise provided for. Also to include the repairs to Edmonton rifle range	 50,000
Connaught rifle range	 25,000
Total	 $206,000

These Ibwo amounts, $500,000 and $205,000, make up the total Estimate of $705,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In reference to the Halifax expenditure, the press contains announcements of very important changes at Halifax respecting the disposal of military property. It is inkimated (that the Government intend disposing otf a large quantity of property at Halifax. Is the minister in a position to make some statement in regard to that?


Hugh Guthrie: The Government has under [DOT]consideration the question of disposing of unused property 'which to-day belongs to the Dominion of Canada in right of the Department of Militia. As I explained to the House yesterday, we have a very large accumulation of valuable real estate which we are not using, and we have on the other hand a great lack of barrack accommodation in Canada. The question under consideration is the speedy disposal of the unused real estate, if possible, to provide a fund for the construction of barracks. I understand that a good deal of valuable Government property Is Ideated in Halifax. The matter is still only a matter that is receiving our best consideratibn. What will ultimately be dtone, I cannot s.ay; but our object, is, if passible, to turn these unused properties into cash. I cannot say when that will be done.


William Stevens Fielding: Do I understand that nothing definite has been done in regard to 'the city of Halifax?


Hugh Guthrie: Nothing definite. The properties have been listed and valued; that iis all.


William Stevens Fielding: I noticed, among the details the minister gave us, quite large sums for pavements. Does that mean that we are going to .construct pavements abutting some of the properties we are going to dispose of?


Hugh Guthrie: We shall take -care not to expend our money on pavements opposite properties which we are going to dispose Of unless 'that is going ito improve the saleable value of the property. I think we could be trusted in that respect. lit is to pay our share of the pavement in respect Of those properties that the Estimate is made. I would not enter upon the construction of permanent pavement unless the salealble value of a property would be enhanced thereby.


Mr. DUFF:: Does the minister mean side-w'alks, or streets?


Hugh Guthrie: The item includes both sidewalks and streets.


William Duff: Why would the Militia Department have to pave any streets in Halifax?


Hugh Guthrie: I think in every municipality the Government assumes a share of the cost of pavements. That rule has been established for a long time. The Government does not assume the whole thing; but where a frontage tax is assessed, the Government pays its share just the .same as an ordinary individual.


William Duff: My idea is that the property owner pays for half of the sidewalk, in front of his property; he does not pay anything for the street, that is the ordinary custom. I never heard of the Government or anybody else paying for the middle of the street.


Hugh Guthrie: If that is the rule in Nova Scotia, that rule will apply to the Government also. But in Ontario the rule is different; the owner pays the whole cost half way across the street, that is, one-half of the cost of the whole street including the sidewalk and the pavement. The Government pays its share on the frontage tax basis just the same as an individual. If a different rule obtains in other provinces, that rule will apply to the Government also. ,


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I understand the department have been looking around in Montreal-lately for a site for new barracks. They applied to the city corporation. I should -like to know if it is contemplated to abandon the barracks at St. John's which have been used for many years. I should also like to know what has been done at the Bonnie Belair race track near the city limits. The request to the corporation was for a part of the Maison-neuve park, hut the corporation has no power to allot a portion of a public park for such purposes.


Hugh Guthrie: We have some barrack accommodation at St. John's, Quebec, which is some distance from the city of Montreal. We have another property known as the Dorval property, as I am informed, about twelve or fourteen miles out from Montreal. A property so far out as that is not considered very desirable property for housing permanent troops. The reason is that it is so far from the city that enlisted men have to work until 5 or 5.30 p.m., and if they have to go fourteen or fif-

teen miles to town and fourteen or fifteen miles back, they consider that a great hardship apart from the expense, and it is difficult to obtain men under such circumstances. Consequently, the Dorval property has not been considered a very available property for purposes of barracks for permanent troops. The only other property the Government has in the city of Montreal is known as the Peel street barracks. That is a rented property and our lease of it is soon to terminate. We are confronted in Montreal with a problem-not quite as serious as the one in Toronto-where to house our permanent force.


Mr. PARENT:: What about the Guy street barracks?


Hugh Guthrie: That is also a rented property.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister abandoned the idea of continuing or enlarging the St. John barracks, which is a splendid place for housing troops?


Hugh Guthrie: The idea, in the meantime, is to continue the St. John barracks, not to enlarge them. The intention was to establish in.the city of Montreal.


Georges Parent: Do not lose St. John's; it is very useful in election times. .


Hugh Guthrie: It might be that in the course of years we should consolidate the whole district of Montreal, but at the present time there is no intention of abandoning the barracks at St. John's. We are very glad to have those barracks at our disposal at present. Some steps are being taken to look over various properties in Montreal, but no definite action has been taken.	*	'	1	: *)


Charles Marcil: Ai;e the
St. John's barracks utilized at the present time?


Hugh Guthrie: There is one squadron of cavalry there now, which, I believe, fills the barracks.	.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister is slightly inaccurate in one particular. Dorval is nine and one-half miles from Montreal, not 14 miles.
Grants to associations, etc.. $105,000.


John Howard Sinclair: There
seems to be a considerable increase here. Last year my hon. friend got along with a very small .sum, and I suppose if he made up his mind he could get along with a much smaller sum than this year. Last
year he spent $2,548.60. Most of it was spent in the city of Ottawa. Headquarters Rifle Association, Ottawa, received $100; Canadian Rifle League, $500; Western Canada Military Institute, Winnipeg, $700; Canadian Military Institute, Toronto, $700; Henry Birks & Sons, Ltd., Ottawa, 60 cents; -G.G.F.G. Band, Ottawa, $548; a total of $2,548.60. The item this year is about forty times as much. It would seem . to me the minister might make some saving here. It is very nice to give a present to a brass band, but I would suggest that^ the minister give the money to the Minister of Finance to enable him to pay ispme of the bills on his desk which he has not the money to settle. I think instead of giving away presents to various associations it would be more in keeping at the present time if iwe paid our debts.


Charles Marcil: I see by a Montreal evening paper that the keeper of the Chauibly Fort, a very historic fort in the province of Quebec, not far from Montreal, has been given notice that his services will be dispensed with on the first of July. What is the intention of the department regarding the Chambly Fort?


Hugh Guthrie: This is the first I have heard of this matter, but I -shall make inquiries and let my hon. friend know tomorrow. In answer to my hon. friend from Guysborough, I think we should expand, rather than attempt to save, on this item. The reason why the expenditure was small that year was that we had no units at all and very few hands, because the majority of the men had not returned. This is one of the grants that is expressly for the purpose of encouraging the volunteer force in Canada. It is not for the permanent force at all. Of this item $23,000 is for military bands. For Military Institutes, which are extremely necessary and which do a splendid work, we have put in the modest sum of $5,000. I would have liked to see that increased, but that is all we are asking this year. For Rifle Associations, $69,000, and for Service Associations $15,100. That would be $112,100, but we have made a reduction of $7,100 on account of Rifle Associations which it is anticipated will not complete their organization in time for the grant, leaving the net amount $105,000. Having regard to the cost of everything nowadays, I think that is a very modest programme. The amount -spent last year, I am told, was $27,000, and the amount voted last year $80,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Are these rifle associations military associations?



Hugh Guthrie: They are semi-military associations. Civilians form them, too.
Maintenance, Military Properties, $200,000. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: I would like to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that according to the statement he presented to Parliament we are asked to pay about twice as much for the maintenance of military properties this year as we were in the year preceding the war. The amount that is asked this year is $200,000, whereas in 1913-14, according to the statement which the minister has given to Parliament, $100,000 was expended for this purpose. It would look as though during the war we had acquired a lot of property and now are going to spend a lot of money on keeping it up. Can the minister give any explanation of this big increase?


Hugh Guthrie: The general increase in the cost of practically everything is largely accountable for the increase in this item. It covers rentals, for instance, and rentals have increased. Fuel, which has more than doubled in cost, light, water, telephone rents, sanitary services in connection with all buildings, drill halls, armouries, and rifle ranges rented by the Government, except those occupied by the permanent force. These are buildings which pertain exclusively to the volunteer force. I do not know that I can account for the increase beyond saying that it is due to the increased cost in every one of these items.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
Government paying as rents?


Hugh Guthrie: In Military District No. 1, $287; in Toronto, $22,880; Kingston, no rent; Montreal, $13,701.
Mr. MARCH, (Bonaventure): Is that for Peel street barracks?


Hugh Guthrie: And Guy streelt, too.


John Allmond Marsh: That is
no longer in use.


Hugh Guthrie: It covers all our build-, ings in Montreal which are not for the permanent force. In Quebec, Halifax and St. John, New Brunswick, there, is no rental; Winnipeg, $2,280. When this Estimate was prepared there was no rental for Victoria, but we have since had to rent a property there for artillery baTracks; 'Calgary, $5,160; Regina, $9,600. The fuel item is a very serious one, amounting to $137,753. Fuel has more than doubled in cost, I think, in the last few years. Light, $26,533; that is for the whole of Canada. Walter and sundry items, $28,215. That makes a 
total of $246,000-odd which the military districts have requested, but Ithe amount we are asking is $200,000.


Mr. STEIN:: Are these drill halls all on the same footing as the one that has been rented by the Government since the beginning of the war in Riviere-du-Loup, in the county of Temiscouata, for a drill hall? The building belongs to Mr. Riou, a lawyer of Riviere-du-Loup, and the defeated Unionist candidate in Ithe county o.f Kam-ouraska at the last federal election. It is a very interesting case. Although there was. a drill hall in the city of Riviere-du-Loup belonging Ito the Government, this gentleman succeeded in renting to the Government his clothing store for a drill hall for three years, and he had a condition in the lease Ithat if the Government failed to notify him three months before the expiration of the lease that they wanted Ito terminate it, the lease was to run for another Ithree years. The Government failed, as usual, to do its duty. They did not give the necessary notice and the lease is in force for three more years, the rent having been increased from $75 to $90 per month. The place is closed and the rent is paid by the Government. I should like to know if all other drill halls are in the same case as this one.


Hugh Guthrie: I can assure my hon. friend they are not.


Charles Adolphe Stein: I am glad to know it.


Hugh Guthrie: This one appears to be something of an exception. My understanding of the matter was that the Government had an option on the property for a lease of either three or five years, or perhaps it was two or five years. For two years the rental was something like $75 a month, and if they took it for five years it was to be increased to $90. The Government fitted it up for a drill hall for the purpose of mobilization during the war, and it is nioiw to be used for the purpose of a local corps of volunteers, which we hope to form and which is authorized at the present time for artillery purposes. I do not know that at this moment it is used for that purpose, but that is the intention; and I certainly hope that in the near future it will be put to that use. It will be a drill hall for the militia, and while dt may not be the most up-to-date building, I think that for the purpose for which it is intended it is quite suitable. That is my information, although I am not personally aware of the facts of the matter.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT :: A big Unionist gun.


Charles Adolphe Stein: I think the Government should admit that this is a blunder. There is another drill hall in Riviere du Loup, distant from that one about ten acres or arpents. It was built in 1910 or 1911 by the Government, and it is closed as well as the Rioux drill hall. The Government has already one drill hall with a place in which to put ammunition, and the other place is simply a store that was closed owing to the fact that the lessee had abandoned business. When the war broke out, instead of using the drill hall that belonged to them the Government opened up this other place. It was only after the Rioux arsenal had been in use for two years or thereabouts that the Government, having been censured by the newspapers for this blunder, decided to use the other place. There is no use for two drill halls in Riviere du Loup.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I aisk the hon. member for K a mourns k a (Mr. Stein) if this is the same Rioux who was suspended by the Bar Association of Quebec?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.
Mr. MAR'CIL (Bonaventure): When the minister says that he is looking around Montreal for another site for barracks, do I understand him to mean that the Dorval property is to be abandoned? On whose advice was that property purchased and what was the pricer


Hugh Guthrie: I do not desire my hon. friend to understand me to say that any definite conclusion has been reached in regard to the Dorval property. The question of disposing of it is under consideration; but unless we can dispose of it to advantage I do not for a moment say that action will be taken. Inquiries have been made in regard to other properties in the city of Montreal. I do not know at present what the property cost, from whom it was purchased, or when it was purchased. If my hon. friend desires that information I can undertake to get it for him to-morrow.


Charles Marcil: I am afraid the Government will not get what they paid for it.


Hugh Guthrie: That is often the case
with private property.


Mr. CANNON:: Who looks after the drill hall at Levis?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand there is
a caretaker there but at the moment I cannot give his name.


Lucien Cannon: What is his salary?


Hugh Guthrie: When we come to the item of salaries and wages I can give all that information. His salary is $120 a year; his name is Richard.


Lucien Cannon: When was he appointed?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not got that information now. I will try to get it when we come to the item of salaries and wages.


Lucien Cannon: On whose recommendation was the appointment made?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no knowledge of that. If these questions are material, when we come to salaries and wages I shall be glad to furnish the necessary information.
Ordnance, Arms, Lands, etc., $10>0,0'00.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: Would
local companies organized in battalions be given any money under the item in the details:	" Grants to Rifle Associations,
Active Militia Bands, Military Institutions and Regimental Associations"?


Hugh Guthrie: Local companies are
not entitled to grants.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What I mean is, are any grants given to local companies in the way of assisting them to organize and carry on?


Hugh Guthrie: The only assistance
that is given is the grant made to the officer commanding. He is paid at the rate of 60 cents per man of the company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister please explain this item?


Hugh Guthrie: This item is to provide for transport of heavy ordnance and field guns; for the reserve of mobilization stores; ammunition, small arms, saddlery, harness and transport vehicles, also for the inspection, maintenance and repairs of same; for the cost of inspection of all ordnance; for the purchase of land for camp grounds, rifle ranges, drill halls, etc.; for all expenses and disbursements in connection therewith. Before the war, the annual expenditure under this vote was in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000. At the present time there is considerable reserve on hand of clothing and military stores. The ordnance used overseas is being returned rapidly to Canada, so that for the present and for some time to come I do not anticipate that it will be necessary for us to purchase any ordnance. The annual provision that must be made for the coming year will be the cost of inspection of am-

munition. There will be some changes, I believe, in the howitzer equipment, to conform to the British pattern. A few small purchases of land remain to be completed; I have not the details of those land purchases. It is estimated that the expenditures under this item will amount to $100,000. '


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
said that this item was to cover expenditures for rifle ranges and drill halls. Might I remind him that he informed the House yesterday that the department had altogether some $3,500,000 or $4,000,000 worth of land that they did not know what to do with and that they were thinking of disposing of it and taking the proceeds to help to meet the expense of putting up barracks. Under these circumstances does the minister think he can justify asking for a further expenditure for rifle ranges and drill grounds?


Hugh Guthrie: These are small portions of land that may be wanted here or there to extend a range or drill ground. It is only a contingent matter. I do not know what these pieces of land may be. There may be none at all. But the question of rifle ranges is a large one. To take the situation right here in Ottawa, I am informed that we have in the Connaught ranges perhaps the most highly equipped and best rifle range on the continent of America. The only difficulty is that it is five or six miles away from street car service. We are waiting for the extension of the car line, but there does not seem to be much of a prospect of that in the near future. We have a very valuable property at Rockcliffe. My information is that when the Connaught range was purchased it was with the intention of selling the Rockcliffe property. Offers are being received for the Rockcliffe property.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From whom-private
parties?


Hugh Guthrie: Private people, syndicates and the like. The question of disposing of a property of that kind is a difficult one for a government. A government cannot -very well get into the real estate business. In order to get the full value out of that property it has to be divided and subdivided. It will probably have to be sold in small sections over a period of time, and a government cannot do that very well. The same thing applies'to the beautiful property at Toronto known as the Rifle Range property. The hon, member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) says it

should be kept as a rifle range. It is a property valued at between $1,500 and $2,000 an acre and there are between 500 and 600 acres. It is far too valuable to be used as a rifle range. It is bounded on the north by the provincial highway and on the south by lake Ontario, and all around it are the highest-class residential buildings in Ontario. It is not suitable for a rifle range. How to dispose of it is the question. The Government has not yet determined how it is going to do it.


Mr. MOWAT:: I hope the minister will
not think of disposing of the Long Branch ranges property until he has another one in sight. That property is supposed to be a very good range. The Provincial Rifle Association meets there every year, and the range also supplies facilities for practice for the regiments at Toronto where there are the best shots in Canada. Land is pretty expensive all over, but I hope the minister will not think of selling our only rifle range unless he has another suitable property to substitute for it.


Mr. CURRIE:: First of all, the Militia Department had a very valuable property in the western part of Toronto known as the Garrison Common. That property was obtained by the Militia Department from the Imperial Government. An arrangement was made whereby it was to be sold to the city of Toronto and the Toronto Exhibition Association in lieu of land which the city and the Exhibition Association were to purchase for the department. The city and the Exhibition Association purchased land out near the Humber so that the Stanley barracks could be moved there. The permanent force was to be established on this property. The rifle Tange was purchased out on the Lake Shore road originally for the purpose of the riflemen and for the use of the Ontario Rifle Association. They used to lease to the Ontario Rifle Association the old Garrison Common. The Government bought this new rifle range near Port Credit and the militia units used it and the Ontario Rifle Association. Subsequently the Government disposed, at a big profit, of the land at the Humber, making a few hundred thousand dollars on the transaction, and they purchased a cheap property alongside of the -rifle range where it was the intention to establish the new barracks for the permanent force. When the minister says that there is going to be a new policy and that this land is going to be sold, the city of Toronto will certainly ask some questions. It will want to know

where the permanent force is going to be located. As a matter of fact, the Stanley barracks, where the permanent force is located to-day, belongs to the city of Toronto and there is no reason why the permanent force should be allowed to remain ther.e a day longer. The city of Toronto bought that property and paid for it but the permanent force is still there. It is not the property of the Militia Department any longer in so far as fairness and equity are concerned, because the city of Toronto has satisfied the Militia Department by giving it a property to take the place of the Garrison Common property. Where is the permanent force going to be located if you are going to do away with the property at Long Branch? Where are you going to get, in the vicinity of Toronto, a rifle range that will meet the requirements of the present long-range rifle? You will have to go out fifteen or twenty miles unless you are prepared to pay twice as much as you will get for the Lake Shore road land. I had the opportunity of going over topographical surveys and plans of rifle ranges within fifteen or twenty miles of Toronto and there was only one that I could see that was within any reasonable distance of Toronto. Before that policy is adopted the Militia Department had better, to use a current expression, mind its step, because it is not going to act fairly or justly if it does what the minister suggests.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend know the attitude of Toronto in reference to this matter because we have had communication with them?


John Allister Currie: I do npt know the attitude of the city of Toronto, but I know the attitude of the citizens of Toronto. If the minister accepts the attitude< of two or three aldermen in the city of Toronto he is liable to err. Their attitude in regard to the rifle range cannot be taken as that of the city. The council of the city of Toronto is made up in part of real estate dealers who, very likely, want to see the rifle range sold so that it can subsequently be disposed of in lots. I do not know' where there is any other land within a reasonable distance of the city and I am sure the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) will bear me out in that. This is the first time that anybody ever heard the council or anybody else in Toronto wanting to remove the permanent force, sell the rifle range and not build the barracks out at Long Branch.


Hugh Guthrie: We must not have any misunderstanding about this. I did speak
of removing the permanent force but of establishing it in Toronto. There is nothing to house the permanent force at the present rifle range property. The huts are there, but they are largely blown down. We have transferred the old Garrison Commons to the city of Toronto, and we are there now as tenants-at-will of the city. The city does not want to put us out, and we want to find a suitable place in Toronto. We have a property in Rosedale, but there is great objection to our utilizing it for barracks. We have the St. Andrew's College property which we bought during the war for $500,000, and we want to dispose of it. We are sure we can get a little more than that for it now. We have that property worth $1,500 or $2,000 an acre in the finest residential part of the city of Toronto, and to use that for a barracks would be rather extravagant. Consequently another site will have to be provided. We do not want to keep the old Stanley barracks; it is not suitable and there are complaints in regard to it. The officers of the Toronto district have gone into this question from top to bottom but the difficulty is where to locate. Detachments of men who should be stationed in Toronto to-day are not there. The Princess Patricias are in London whereas they ought to be in Toronto. I do not know whether we shall be able to move them this year to Toronto or not. We have in the Orthopedic Hospital a very large building, but the units in Toronto want it for ordinary drill hall purposes. In any event it will take a lot of money to make it suitable for barracks. It is a difficult problem that confronts us. The idea was to get a new rifle range if one could be secured, and establish a new barracks in Toronto. The question of the money was not the difficulty, in view of the valuable property we hold.


Samuel Hughes: Why not use part of the rifle range for the barracks?


Hugh Guthrie: There is room' there, but in the first place I think it is pretty valuable land to use for establishing a barracks and in the second place the objection from headquarters in Toronto is that it is nine miles from the City Hall and the main objection is the time consumed in getting from one place to another; the amount of travelling is too great, and then there is the question of expense.


Samuel Hughes: Is it too far from the pink teas?


Hugh Guthrie: It is the men that are
making the complaint, not the officers.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I know something about
this question and I think I ought to say a word or two about it. The present barracks, I think, are to small, and the officers cannot get recruits, especially for the permanent force, unless the barracks accommodation is made better. You see, our young fellows in Canada are accustomed to the conveniences of life, and to living in good houses. They are not going into a ramshackle barracks where ten or twelve men occupy one room and there is no privacy. Unless the Government can find its way to provide barracks accommodation such as they have in the Old Country and in the United States-where the dwellings are really homes for the men and they take a pride in them-it is going to experience difficulty in getting recruits. I know perfectly well the Government is up against great difficulty in getting accommodation at this time; but if you take the men out nine miles from the city where they cannot get in to see the motion pictures, or to visit their friends, and that kind of thing, it militates against recruiting. The thing to do now is to try and secure barracks within a reasonable distance of the centres of amusement, and shops, and similar conveniences, otherwise the men will not enlist.
I am sorry to say I have to
10 p.in. somewhat resent the character of the remarks made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). That hon. member characterized the aider-men of Toronto in a way that is not acceptable to me. He must remember, although he comes from North Simcoe, that these transactions are not left to one or two aldermen, but that anything that is done is done by the city council as a whole -a very respectable body of men, who never take any action without great deliberation.


John Allister Currie: With regard to this matter I wish to say that when the land was purchased at Long Branch for the permanent force, as an addition to the rifle range, plans and specifications were prepared-in fact I think tenders were called just at the outbreak of the war-in order to put up these barracks. Nothing further in that direction was done, but for the last two or three years there have been mysterious purchases of land in the vicinity of Toronto for military purposes. The reason for these transactions is not apparent but everybody knows that the Militia Department have made enough money out of the transactions in land in Toronto to have built these barracks and to have built them

long ago. As far as the city council of Toronto is concerned I do not think this matter ever came before them.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Hugh Guthrie: No, we have decided
not to put the barracks there. That was why we entered into negotiations with the city of Toronto. We have abandoned the idea of building barracks in Rosedale, but we have that property now and we have to dispose of it. The question we are trying to settle is a suitable location for a barracks in Toronto, but any negotiations that have taken place have been purely informal, and there has been no offer.


John Allister Currie: To whom?


Hugh Guthrie: There have been no
agreements. All we have been doing has been casting about with the idea of locating the most convenient place for a barracks to be put.


John Allister Currie: 
Hugh Guthrie: Nothing of the kind will take place. I earn give my hon. friend an assurance of that.


Samuel Hughes: I presume that, as the hon. member for North Simcoe says, there is question of land speculation involved.


John Allister Currie: Real estate.


Samuel Hughes: 
Hugh Guthrie: I can assure my hon. friend that nothing of the kind will be done without the fullest inquiry and the widest publicity and without proper regard for the interests of all concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister stated a moment agioi that he intended to sell the Dorval property. Has any report been miade which would indicate that the sale of that property is justifiable?


Hugh Guthrie: IMy hon. friend must not put words in my mouth. I did not say that I intended to sell any property. What I said was that the policy was now under consideration of selling such properties as were not being utilized. I afn told that there is some objection to .the Dorval property. I understand that for one thing, the level of the land is below the level of the river. I do not know how true that is, but if it is true it would be a serious defect. But I am not at all familiar with the Dorval property; I have never seen it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remember that when the property was purchased a ifew years ago the transaction was criticised, but it was very hotly defended on the floor of the House. The property was represented as being .a good one, very accessible to the militiamen of Montreal. Niow we are informed that it is below the level of the St. Lawrence.


Hugh Guthrie: If the property is as suitable as my hon. friend thinks it is, it may be adopted as a site. I understand that there lare objections to it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend any report .against that property, or any report to justify his assertion that it may be sold?


Hugh Guthrie: I have simply made the general statement that the question of the sale of all military property in Canada which is not being utilized is under consideration. My information is that the Dorval property is not being utilized. If it should turn out that the Dorval property is suitable for barracks I ck* not see .any reason for selling it; but if it is unsuitable and not being used for militia purposes there is every reason for not holding it, provided a proper price can be obtained for it.


Samuel Hughes: I chance to know a little .about the Dorval property. There is mo truth whatever in the statement that it is beloiw the level of the river. The Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway lines run through it. The plans are in the department to-day, or were there when I left, for the septic tanks for draining the property. At time of high ice flood the property has had water on it, the same as parts of Montreal itself have had water on them in days gone by, but there is no more danger of the place being under water than there is of the city of Ottawa where we mow stand being under water. [DOT] The property is quite a suitable property, the

only place we could get within reasonable distance of Montreal. Officers and noncommissioned officers were consulted with regard to the purchase of the property; it was generally regarded as a very suitable site and as the .most convenient place for officers to train for their certificates. If plans were taken of the militia properties that were handed over by the Imperial Government in the various cities and centres throughout Canada and a comparison made of the extent of those properties and that of the properties which we now have, the public would be startled. There was the case of Lafontaine park in Montreal, which was handed over for a song. My policy was to hold to every foot of land we had. These properties do not cost the country anything for maintenance and they are all coming in handy. The whole trouble is that a number of speculators get after the Government in one form or another, and the first thing you know is that these properties are sold and then the Government has to turn round and pay large sums for other property. Keep the speculator out of this business and things will come out all right.


Charles Marcil: Alongside the Doirval property there is a remount station. Is that owned by the department or is it only leased?


Hugh Guthrie: I believe that it was leased by the Imperial Government. I do not know whether or not it is in existence now. It does not belong to this Government.


Lucien Cannon: Is it the intention of the Government to remove the Ross Rifle factory from the Plains of Abraham?


Hugh Guthrie: I really never heard that question discussed, but I will take it up and consider it. I do not really know enough about it to answer.


Lucien Cannon: Last year the minister's predecessor had given the matter consideration hut evidently had not reached any conclusion. It is 'a very important matter and the people of the city of Quebec v'ould be grateful for any information that the minister can give on t'he subject.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for Quebec AVest (Mr. Parent) spoke to me once on the subject and I think I said that we might go down- and look the situation over. But I Teally have not any information on the subject. I can make in

quirias 'and will give my hon. friend an answer.
Progress reported.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Customs -and Inland Revenue) Bill No. 167, to amend 'the Post Office Act, was read the second time, -and the House went into committee 'thereon, Mr. Boivtin in the Chair.
On section 1-maximum registration fee increased from five to ten cents:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the meaning of that amendment?


Mr. BURRELL:: Under the present registration fee of five cents the department has been losing about -a quarter of a million dollars annually, and this loss will be augmented toy increases of salaries, 'and so on. We 'are now placing the fee for registration *at ten cents instead of five. That is the same as they have it in the United States -and lower than the registration fee in England. The rural postmasters will obtain slightly increased remuneration on account Of the increased revenue.


Charles Marcil: What is the rate of domestic postage in the United States?


Martin Burrell: Two cents.


Charles Marcil: Then for registered letters we will have to pay the ordinary postage of three cents and an additional ten cents, a total of thirteen cents. Does the minister consider that reasonable?


Martin Burrell: Of course, the extra cent on the ordinary postage is an increase made on account of the war expenditures, so we might leave that out of consideration. But the registration fee in the United States is, as we are proposing, namely, ten cents.


Charles Marcil: As the
domestic postage there is two cents, our rate should be the same. Surely we are not behind the United 'States in that matter.


Martin Burrell: We are well up to them anyway.


Jacques Bureau: This is an increase of
100 per cent, and it is a pretty quick jump. We have surely enough taxes to pay without this one. If we want to send a registered letter, that costs ten cenlts; special delivery costs ten cents, and then there is a war tax in addition on domestic postage.


Charles Marcil: We want some explanation.


Martin Burrell: 
Jacques Bureau: The minister says that
this is to cover a loss on registered mail. Surely there cannot be a loss of one hundred per cent on registered mail. The revenue of the department surely cannot be only fifty per cent of the expenditure on registered mail. There is only Ithe stationery required, and the time required by the clerk to register, and the cost of the postage stamp. A special bag may be required, hut does the department pay anything extra to the railway companies or other carriers for carrying registered mail?


Martin Burrell: 
Jacques Bureau: Why not make the rate
eight cents?


Charles Marcil: What is
the total deficit in the Post Office Department for the past year?


Martin Burrell: I cannot give my hon. friend the exact figures in relation to the Post Office Department, but practically the war revenue and the additional one-cent postage wiped out the deficit.


Charles Marcil: Do I understand there was no deficit at all last year?


Martin Burrell: No deficit last year.


Charles Marcil: Then, what is Ithe purpose of increasing this rate on registered mail?


Martin Burrell: We cannot say that
there will not be a deficit next year.


Charles Marcil: Is the increase being made in anticipation of a deficit this year?


Jacques Bureau: The Government ought
to increase the rates on the railways also if that be the case. I understand this is to cover a deficit or because there is a shortage in revenue. This increase of five cents must be based on something. Surely it is not a haphazard guess made by officials of the department to increase the revenue. It must be for the purpose of meeting a deficiency in revenue, and it must toe based on certain data. I should presume that that data would toe a deficit or shortage in revenue in the Post Office Department. My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell), acting for the Postmaster General, says that the one-cent war tax covers the deficit they had in the department, and without knowing what the probable deficit may be next year, we are going to charge an additional five cents. If we take the past year as a basis, this five cents additional is going to be a net surplus, or we might say that it is a disguised war tax that is being imposed by the Post Office Department instead of being imposed by the Finance Department. If there be no deficit, why charge this five cents additional? If there be a deficit, why not charge just ehough to cover the difference between the revenue and expenditure of this branch of the Post Office Department?


Martin Burrell: 
William Stevens Fielding: What constitutes the
additional expense in the registration branch? I understand, of course, there must be a registration branch in every post office, but in the bulk of the post offices throughout the country, the postmaster who

receives a small salary looks after the registration branch as well.


Martin Burrell: There are various expenses, administration, equipment, bags, different handling and a large increase in the number of employees in comparison with a general post office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: If the minister will allow me before he replies, I should like to complete a statement I made a moment ago regarding the reorganization of the department under the direction of the German-American firm. I forgot to mention that we have, from the Government themselves, the admission that very important reductions in the expenditure can be made through the inspection which will take place and which probably might render it unnecessary to impose a new tax on the people of Canada. This is what the Government states in this report:
The Company is ot the opinion, and the Committee-
That is, the Committee of the Privy Council.



-sees no reason for disagreeing therewith, that commencing the reorganization of these two departments, savings will begin to be realized gradually after two or three months of work, which, in the end, in respect to the Post Office Department, may well reach many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, with proportionate savings in the Customs Department, and the Committee believes that based upon the results already obtained, and the expenditure already made in respect to the classification of the whole Civil Service and the reorganization of the one branch which has now been nearly completed, it is wise, if not imperative, that the work should be carried on and the benefits extended gradually to the other Departments.
I am not passing judgment on the advisability of entrusting the reorganization of the department to foreigners. I am not discussing that phase of the question; that is another point altogether. But I say that the Government themselves admit that when this reorganization takes place under the direction of that firm hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum will be saved in the Post Office Department. If that result can be attained within a few months, as it is stated in the report of the Privy Council, why should we let the poor public pay in advance? My hon. friend should postpone this proposed taxation; and first of all, as charity begins at home, he should reduce expenditures, thus preventing the public of this country from paying for the follies of the department.


Mr. J. D. REID:: 
Charles Marcil: The domestic rate there is reduced to two cents.


John Flaws Reid: The registration fee was raised to ten cents and that rate is still in force. It is true the postal rate has been reduced from three to two cents, but their financial situation is not the same as it is in. Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: Was not the money all put into the post office fund and used for the purpose of running the post office? One of the complaints on the part of the public is that this one-cent tariff was put on for a war tax and that it was never used for war purposes. It was used for the post office.


John Flaws Reid: All these revenues are put into the consolidated revenue fund,, the cost of the operation of the department is paid and the accounts go through the Auditor General's hands.


John Howard Sinclair: That is quite true but- the consolidated, revenue fund did not pay the war.


John Flaws Reid: The money from the Post Office Department went into the consolidated * revenue fund, and if we had not put on that extra cent of war tax we would have had a deficit of at least $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. The annual statement, as read by the hou. member for Miaisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), was to the effect that the cost of administreing the department had increased'.


Rodolphe Lemieux: More than doubled.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member for Guysboirough cam see that if we had not had this $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 we would not have had sufficient money for the operation of the department.


Mr. PEDLOW:: There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the minister and that is the sale of postage stamps for inland revenue purposes. I understand the proceeds from the sale of these stamps is credited to the Post Office Department, whereas the stamps are used for inland revenue purposes. I raised that point a year ago and the minister in charge of the Bill assured me that the money would be credited to inland revenue during the year. Does the Post Office Department receive credit for the sale of postage stamps that are used for inland revenue purposes?	'


John Flaws Reid: I remember that some one-'perhaps it was the hon. gentleman- asked last year why we should not have a separate stamp for inland revenue purposes. The answer was that it would be very inconvenient in outlying districts if you had to have one stamp for the inland revenue tax and a different one for postage. The Postmaster General and his staff have stated that it is absolutely impossible to keep them separate or to say how much has been paid for inland revenue purposes and how much has been paid for post office.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
Martin Burrell: I am not at all sure that I can give my hon. friend the information he wants, because it is a postage stamp that is used. I could give him the figure's in regard to the inland revenue stamps, but in regard to postage stamps that the public are allowed to use for inland revenue purposes, it would be impossible to tell where the division comes. I would be very glad, when we come to the Inland Revenue Estimates to give him the figures of the inland revenue stamps. We know it is a great convenience to the public to allow them to use postage stamps. I suppose the system was established for that purpose and as a matter of public convenience.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is the committee to understand that the entire receipts from the sale of postage stamps are all credited to the Post Office Department and are used to defray the cost of carrying on that department?


Martin Burrell: They all go to the credit of the Receiver General, I presume, through the Post Office Department.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Then it follows that the Post Office Department gets credit for a large amount of money from the sale of postage stamps that it is no tentitled to.


Martin Burrell: Yes, I think there is no doubt something in what my hon. friend says. My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. March) asked me in regard to the figures.


Charles Marcil: The figures of the registration division.


Martin Burrell: I gave them the other
night when Ithe resolutions were being considered. At all events I said that the total revenue was about half a million dollars and the total ,cost of administration about three-quarters of a million and will be more this year on account of the great increase in salaries and so on.

Mr. MARiCIL:	Has there been any increase in remuneration to Ithe country postmasters at all?


Martin Burrell: I believe that is under consideration alt the present time. This legislation will incidentally affect the country postmasters; it will give them more revenue because their salaries are based on the business done.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is the commission paid the postmasters with respect to registration stamps the same as in .other cases?


Martin Burrell: The same commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister nothing to say about the firm to which reference has been made?


Martin Burrell: Well, I cannot tell my hon. friend much about the firm. I think it is a branch of the same firm that has done work in connection with the reorganization of the Bureau, and they have been selected upon the advice and recommend-altion of tlio Civil Service Commission. I have watched their work very closely, and I do not think my hon. friend is perhaps quite fair to them. They are no doubt men of great business efficiency and have made a special study of these matters. I think anybody who has waltched the work done in the reorganization of the Bureau will probably admit that it has been put in a businesslike condition that will mean an immense annual saving to the country, and wilth probably just as efficient results as regards production. Whatever my hon. friend may say about the Post Office Department, I do not think there is a man in this House-and I can say this certainly from a non-partisan standpoint-but will admit that the introdudtion of modern methods of business into a department of Government here or elsewhere would accomplish a great deal. But fit is difficult work and may arouse a lot off friction. I am not going to pronounce on this particular firm except to say that those who have had Ithe opportunity of judging their work and who have read the report of the Civil Service Commission believe that they are well equipped for suoh duties, and will render good service to the public and to the country.
Mr. A. R. M'CjMAiSIIvR (Brome) (Translation) :	Mr. Chairman, we have to-night a
very- sad spectacle. The postmaster is not here in this House, he is in the Senate, and we have no opportunity to examine his budget, or rather his bill. We have an
fMr. Burrell.]
amiable gentleman, who does not know much about the matter before the House, and he is in difficulties; he calls out for help, and the minister who shoulders the largest deficit answers his call. But he is again in difficulties and then comes another member of the Government, a gentleman with a cunning smile, who gives his precious help to both of his colleagues; but the three of them, who may be compared to the Musketeers so much talked of in the novels .otf Victor Hugo

Mr. LAPiO.BNT'E: Alexandre Dumas.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, Alexandre Dumas, they do not see the difference. These three gentlemen together are not worth one member from Gaspe and Maisonneuve, when he was minister of the department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Apart from the fact that it has been stated in this memorandum from the Privy Council that there are 24,000 employees in the Post Office Department and that very material reductions should be made within a very short time thus saving several hundred thousand dollars. I wish to call the attention of my hon. friend -who I know is British-born and must stand by British parliamentary precedents -to the fact that if there is one thing for which I have great regard, if there is anything for which I admire the British people, it is their love for free parliamentary institutions. I say that this is a very serious departure from parliamentary government, from responsible government. The ministers are responsible to Parliament and Parliament is responsible to the people. Now you are departing absolutely from the old time-honoured principle that the ministers shall direct their own departments, and for the administration of those departments will be responsible to Parliament itself. Now the ministers will remain idle, will eat the bread of idleness, and they w'ill shift their work to commissions. If the commissions appointed were even British or Canadian I would object, but not so strenuously as I do object when I see these super-loyal ministers of the Crown in the Unionist Government shifting their task to German-American firms. I say it is a great blot on the Canadian escutcheon, it is a great stricture on parliamentary traditions, to thus shift your work onto foreign commissions and get them to investigate your departments. But apart from the parliamentary and traditional point of view, how is it that the Govern-

ment in their new departure, have first selected the Post Office Department for investigation? Is that not clear evidence that there is "something rotten in the state of Denmark"? Is there not in that very fact, and the bringing in of German-Amer-ican firms, to first investigate the Post Office Department, evidence that the ministers who, since 1911, have been the presiding and responsible heads of that department have failed, and lamentably failed, in their duty? I leave it to you Mr. Chairman: Will you believe that any miii-ister in the -Post Office Department could defend the doubling, and more than doubling, of the expenditure in the department as compared with a time when we had a better service? Although it is very sad to have to impose new forms of taxation upon the public, I am rather pleased to find that whereas under a straight Liberal Government we had a surplus, notwithstanding a reduction of postal taxation under the Tory-Unionist Government, despite an increase of taxation, there is a deficit. The comparison need not be elaborated, I leave it at that. My only regret is that the smiling minister is here to bear the white man's burden. But there is no white man in the case I am sorry to say; there are many niggers on the fence in the department, from what I know. I am only sorry my hon. friend is here in this House bearing the burden of another minister who has not yet once given this House the benefit of his experience as Postmaster General. Since 1911 no Postmaster General has given an account of his stewardship; yet to-night we have this spectacle: three ministers of the Crown cannot explain the serious gap which exists as between the figures of 1911 and 1920. Yet the people of the country are being subjected to increased taxation.


Martin Burrell: I do not think I ought
to let pass without comment my hon. friend's remark about the placing of ministerial responsibility in the hands of somebody who is not responsible. As I understand it, the Government are just as responsible in connection with any work which this firm may do in the matter of reorganization as they would be , if it were being done through their own deputies or their own officers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With this difference:
that you pay $10,000 a month for that work, while ministers of the Crown are paid by the State to do it, and they have 24,000 employees in the department to carry out their instructions.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is skipping the point. The extent of parliamentary responsibility is exactly the same in the one case as in the other. My hon. friend may cherish his own opinion as to the value of the work in question, but the point of parliamentary responsibility is there just the same. My hon. friend says that I am bearing somebody else's burden. Well, I suppose we all have to bear one another's burdens; it is part of our work in life. But I wish to point out, as my hon. friend seems to be fearfully distressed about the Postmaster General being in the Senate, that during the fifteen years that the Liberal administration was in power there were times when no less than thre ministers were members of the Senate. At different times, under the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and in prior administrations, members of the Government holding the port folios of Agriculture, Trade and Commerce. Justice, and I think, one or two others, were in the Senate. That question also may be arguable, but I do not think my hon. friend should press it too far. Of course, if he wants to move for the abolition of the Senate, that is another matter.


Charles Adolphe Stein: May I inquire whether these experts will try their hand at the re-organization of the Union Government as well?


Frank S. Cahill: The minister said that he expected great saving in the Post Office Department as a result of this re-organization. In what way does he expect to bring about that saving?


Martin Burrell: I do not think my hon. friend can reasonably expect me to go into the details of a scheme that has practically not yet been worked out. But to put it in a broad way, I would say that throughout all government departments, in this country as well as in the United States, and possibly in England,, there do grow up under all our political systems accretions to the public service that are not altogether based on efficiency. We know what has happened in the past, and in that respect we need not place the blame upon one party more than another. All sorts of men and women have been placed in the service; some are kept on that should not be kept on; the equipment is not always kept up-to-date or as a modern business house would keep its equiment. Then there are such matters as methods of arrangement in regard to the department itself, actual physical facilities, and that kind of thing. All these matters are open to improvement, in modern offices with modern methods. I do not think my hon.

friend would expect me to say what particular lines the re-organization will take.


Lucien Cannon: I suggest to the minister that he advise his colleague, the Postmaster General, to remain in Ottawa instead of going into constituencies where there are by-elections, and thus save money to the country. In 1917 there was a by-election in my county. A gentleman by the name of Hon. Mr. Sevigny was running'. The present Postmaster General came down and as a colleague of the minister who represents him to-night he opened no less than three post offices the day before polling took place. No wonder we have deficits in the Post Office Department. Everybody knows that the minister is and always has been absolutely incompetent; he never showed competency anywhere. If the Government want to bring about real reform in the Civil Service they ought to substitute someone else for the present Postmaster General. He represents nobody. He was defeated in two counties in the province of Quebec, losing his deposit in both; yet he is imposed upon us by this Government as representative of our province in the Cabinet. We do not want it. He cannot stay in the House because he cannot secure election, but through a bargain that everybody knows of he has been appointed to the Senate. How can the people of Canada have confidence in a department administered by such a minister? The burden of representing him on this occasion is on my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell); he feels it and we all feel it and that is why we sympathize with him. The hon. gentleman says: let us increase the fee for registration of mail matter before economizing in the department. Always the same method, Mr. Chairman,-let the ordinary, common people pay for the extravagance of the head of the department. There is an economy which suggests itself to everybody-remove the minister himself and save $7,000 which he does not earn. The Postmaster General of Canada to-day has absolutely nothing to do in the direction of the Post Office Department. When a strike takes place in Vancouver, Winnipeg or Toronto it is the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) who settles those strikes-or unsettles them, or it is the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) who goes to Winnipeg in that connection. The Postmaster General does nothing. Why is he there? Cut out his salary and save $7,000; remove him from the Senate and savft another $2,500, and close the useless post offices which were opened everywhere. Cancel the contracts at

exorbitant prices which were given to friends by the Government of the day, Have an auction of those famous padlocks, the contract for which was given to my hon. friend as an inheritance by the Hon. Mr. Pelletier. As the minister may see, many reforms could be effected in the Post Office Department. Why impose new taxes? Why ask the people to pay more when it is so easy to reform and economise in other ways? We, of * the Opposition, do not hold these three ministers responsible; they do not know anything about the department. If it takes' three ministers in this House to defend the Postmaster General, I am not surprised that the Postmaster General is satisfied to remain in the Senate and not to come here himself. But the people of Canada will not be satisfied with any legislation introduced to increase the burden of taxation existing at present, when the department is not administered in a satisfactory way and by a minister who is responsible to the people, but is administered by a minister who, as I said, represents absolutely nothing.
Mr. MicKENZIE: The Post Office Department, iif a registered letter is lost, reimburses the loss to the extent of $20 or $25. That was the case when the ordinary registration fee of five oents was charged. Now that a man has to pay ten cents, will he have any guarantee as to larger sums sent through the mail?


Martin Burrell: The present practice is to make good a loss up to $25. My hon. friend is asking whether there would be a greater amount guaranteed if the rate is increased to ten cents. The amount would be left the same as it is to-day.


Frank S. Cahill: The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid), in speaking on this subject rather intimated that the loading up of the department was due to the deputy minister of the department and his officials. The minister in charge of the Bill (Mr Burrell) softened that a little by saying that it was the custom during Tory Governments to overload the departments. Which of the ministers are we to take as the authority and to believe, on this subject? Does the fault in regard to this overmanning of the department lie with the minister in charge or with the officials?


Martin Burrell: In the first place, I did not understand the Minister of Railways to refer to the loading up of the department. I understood him to say that the largely in-

creased, expenditures were due to necessary increases of expenses 'everywhere, such as railway rates, steamship rates, equipment, wages, salaries and son on. During the war I suppose the expense was pretty heavy because, speaking from memory, I think something like 2,000-there may have been more-post office employees went to the war who, under .an arrangement which was made when they enlisted, were paid, not only the pay of their rank, but their salaries. All those things contributed to the increased expense. I think we would all probably agree that every department could be carried on with fewer employees if it were brought up thoroughly to modern business requirements. I am not casting the blame for that on one side or the other. It is manifest to everyone that this state of affairs exists to a greater or less extent. We would ail welcome an improvement, and there is no necessity of making a party question out of the -matter.


Frank S. Cahill: 
Martin Burrell: Answering that in a
broad way and speaking for myself, I would say that I would not increase my staff unless it were Shown to me by my -responsible officials that employees -were needed for a special purpose; or if a department launching out into new avenues of work, if it were clearly .shown that we .required more employees. I think the question could be answered generally in that way.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Would it be possible for the Civil .Service Commission to deal with the reorganization of the department without employing outside help? The members of the Civil Service Commission, no doubt, have had a certain amount of experience during the time they have been in charge of reclassification, and if they are the capable men I presume they are, with the knowledge they have gained during the time they have been in control of these matters, I would say, as a man of somp experience in handling employees, that these men should be capable of dealing with the situation without bringing in outside help. That would save the expense of bringing in these men from another country to investigate the working and operations of our departments; and to say the least, in my judgment, it is inadvisable to put these foreigners., as they are, in possession of facts and inside information regarding the operations of various departments of the Civil Service of this country. If the Civil Service Commission are not capable of dealing with the situation, we should be able to find in Canada men who are capable of .conducting that investigation.


Martin Burrell: il think my hon. friend would see that with the number of civil servants in Canada-and I should say the number was not less than 50,000 or GO,000 in all services-and with the work that falls on the Civil Service Commission at the present time, it would be impossible for them to go personally into details of organization of different departments. My hon. friend would only have to visit the Civil Service .Commission for a day or so and see their work to realise that. As I understand the matter, although this question would probably be better dealt with on the Estimates of the department, this firm would go into the matter with the co-operation of certain officials selected in the various departments, so that the work would be one of co-operation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the minister think it advisable to bring from a foreign country men to inquire into a matter of this character when no doubt they will obtain regarding the operation of various departments information which I do not think the Government should allow to be in the possession of any men from a foreign country?


Martin Burrell: The commission were
authorised to engage such expert services as they -could secure to do this work of organisation that they have been doing during the last year or so, and especially the work of reorganizing the Printing Bureau. On that authorisation they secured the best experts they could find; they made a recommendation to the Government, and the Government thought fit to accept their recommendation.
/


Mr. FRIPP:: Earlier in the session I took upon myself to express my views in regard to the appointment of this Arthur Young Company in connection with the re-classifi-eation of the Civil Service. At that time I thought I had made it plain that the services which this firm and their employees were rendering to this Government and the country were very much over-estimated. It seems that the Government does not take the advice of those like myself who have some special knowledge of these matters, but has undertaken to re-employ' a certain section of the same firm employed on that re-classification. I submit that it is impossible to discuss the item before the Chair without also discussing the remedy which the Government proposes to put into effect, namely, a supposed or contemplated reduction in the expenditure of the department by reason of this reorganization. I desire to place myself on record as of the opinion that the employment of these gentlemen is absolutely unjustifiable and cannot be defended either in this House or outside. The apparent reason for it is a supposed saving in the reorganization of the Printing Bureau. Now it is ludicrous to any one who understands the real inside working of the Printing Bureau to hear the President of the Privy Council say, as he did in a speech delivered a short time ago in this House, that the splendid work done by these gentlemen in the Printing Bureau was going to save this country-I think he said had already saved this country-'$400,000. Why, that is a myth, an absolute myth. If you take into consideration the value of the machinery which these gentlemen have despoiled and the expensive machinery which they have ordered, and add up the cost you will find that instead of there being a saving to this country there will be a loss at the end of twelve months. I have had occasion to in- < terview some practical men employed in the Bureau and they tell me that the statement I have made is absolutely correct. It seems to me the Government ought to call a halt on employing men of the calibre of Mr. Wolff, who is the boss in charge at the Printing Bureau at the present time, and who does not take his orders from this Government or from any officials of this Government. It was only the other day,
I am informed on very creditable authority, that a minister gave an order for certain work to be performed outside the Bureau and this German-American, Mr. Wolff, when it was brought to his attention, very arrogantly expressed the opinion that he did not take his orders from the minister 
of that department or anybody else, that he was in charge of the work at the Printing Bureau. Yet it is proposed by this Government to continue the services of these gentlemen, at $10,000 a month or more-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Plus expenses.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: -to do what the head of
the department ought to be able to do himself. If the Deputy Postmaster General, after his twehty-odd years in the department, is- not in a position to reorganize it and reduce the staff, if there are more employees than are required, he ought not to hold that office. W'hy is it necessary to bring in some American gentleman to reorganize a department in which we have an officer who ought to be better acquainted with its workings than any outsider could possibly be in twelve months? It cannot be justified, and I would not be doing justice to myself nor to the constituency that I have the honour to represent if I did not say so. I know perhaps as well as, if not better than, most hon. gentlemen of this House the position of the Civil Service, whether it is overmanned or not, and I venture to say this: If the King's Printer, or the Assistant King's Printer, had been ordered by this Government to reorganize the Printing Bureau they would have reorganized it just as efficiently, if not more so, than these gentlemen did at an expenditure to this country of $200,000. The difficulty is the Government does not say to the heads of the different departments: We think you are overmanned and that you should reduce your staff. I venture to say that every deputy minister is just as anxious to have efficiency in his department as the Government is. I venture to say further that every deputy minister resents, and properly so, the bringing into their department of outside gentlemen, men who are not 'Canadian, and who say "John Smith is incompetent" and "William Jones is competent," without even consulting the deputy minister's opinion as to that particular person's ability to do his work. If our deputy ministers and the chiefs of their branches are not capable of reorganizing their respective departments and it is necessary to go outside, then I submit it is proper that some good Canadians just as well qualified as these American gentlemen should have been employed for that purpose.


The CHAIRMAN:: The clause under consideration reads as follows:
Paragraph (k) of subsection one of section nine of the Post Office Act, Revi.se'l Statutes of

Canada, 1'9'0'6, chapter sixty-six, as amended by chapter twenty-nine of the statutes of 1909, is amended by substituting the word "ten" for the word "five" in the seventh line thereof.
This clause provides for the increase of the rat<= on registered letters from 5 to 10 cents. Subsection 5 of Rule 13 says:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
In view of that rule, and the clause before the committee, I certainly must decide that-any discussion concerning the 'reorganization of the public service at the Printing Bureau or elsewhere, or any contemplated reorganization of the public service is not in order. It may be argued by some hon. members that the entire Bill is a Bill to increase post office rates for the purpose of meeting a deficit and that the reorganization of the Post Office Department is germane to the issue. Even if this argument was correct the discussion could only take place when the principle of the Bill was being considered at the time of its second reading. The principle of the Bill has been adopted, and this debate is certainly not in order upon the consideration of any individual clause. ,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish, Mr. Chairman, to question your ruling, but it seems to me that when by means of a Bill a new from of taxation is proposed in one department, it is our right to demonstrate that by cutting down the expenditure in that department the taxation would not be necessary. That was the object of this discussion. We were not discussing the reorganization of the department, but have stated that the Department was being investigated, and that in the Order in Council appointing this firm it was stated that several hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved by the reorganization of the Post Office Department which was overmanned. We were simply showing that there was inordinate expenditure in that department, and that the public should not be called upon to pay for the mal- ad ministration of the Government.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand perfectly the nature of the discussion. My hon. friend would be quite right if this discussion had taken place on the second reading of the Bill when the principle of increased taxation in the Post - Office Department was at issue. But it certainly is not in order when we are considering individual clauses of the Bill,
when the speeches must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.
Mr. GLASS * In the earlier part of the evening the hon. member for Maison-neuve was drawing attention to the large increase in the expenditure of the Post Office Department, and pointing out that in his opinion this increase in ;the rate of registration was partly due to a desire to make up a deficit in the revenues of the Post Office Department. He also pointed out that the increase in the cost of administration of the department was not justified by the increase in our population. In my opinion it is not so much an increase in population as in the general business of the country that affects the expenditure of the department. We know that in the Dominion of Canada between the years my hon. friend mentioned, 1911 and the present time, the manufacturing products of this country increased from $1,500,000 to over $3,000,000. We also know by the deposits and general business of our banks that there has been an increase in the business of the country in that time of more than 100 per cent. That, of itself, would mean a large increase in the service and an increased cost. The Minister of Railways has pointed out some of the factors that enter into the increased cost of the administration, one of which is the development of the rural mail service. The hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) stated justly that he instituted this service in Canada, hut I submit that when he resigned the administration of the department this service was a very insignificant branch of the Post Office Department compared with that. which exists to-day. Apart from that, the large increase in wages, which have more than doubled since his time, would necessarily account to a great extent for the general increase. No one expects, and we have not looked for, a large revenue or profit from the administration of this department. Tt is a public utility which is administered to a large extent at a loss.
I question if there is a 'Solitary Tural mail service, in the country, the revenues derived from which are sufficient to pay for the cost of that particular route. There is a loss all through. I wish to point oiut to the committee a fact which, in my opinion, has a great significance. Let us take the United States with its large population. I have before me the figures in connection with the cost of the administration of the Post Office Department of the United States

from the time of the Civil War down to 1913. The whole total of the revenues from 1866 to 1913 amounted to $3,775,000,000, and the total cost of operation in that time amounted to $4,555,000,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, in that time that country with its immense population, and a greater opportunity far making a profit in this connection if .a profit were possible-during a great part of the time I have mentioned they collected a three-cent instead of a two-cent rate-sustained a loss in the administration of the Post Office Department of $800,000,000. Let us study the subject somewhat closely. I shall take the period from the year 1884 to 1913. .Mark you, in 1884 the population of the United States was approximating ninety millions and in ' the last decade a hundred millions. But notwithstanding this, during the thirty years immediately preceding 1913 the total deficit in the administration of the Post Office Department in the United States amounted to $210,000,000. Now, iSir, let me take the year 1909-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must call the hon. member's attention to the ruling of the Chair given just a few moments ago, to the effect that the debate must be relevant to the clause under consideration. The hon. member is making a speech which would be perfectly in order upon the Post Office Estimates but which is not in order under the clause of the Bill now before the committee. I have no desire abruptly to interrupt the hon. member, and if he has the unanimous consent of the committee I have no objection to his concluding his remarks. I would, however, ask him to bring them to bear as nearly as possible upon the clause under consideration.


Mr. HAY:: Is there to be an increase in postal rates on catalogues issued by wholesale houses and departmental stores?
Mr. BURRELL.: That question does not. properly come under the present clause, and perhaps my hon. friend will refer to it again. I may say in passing that the present rate covers catalogues fairly well; it is one cent for two ounces, or eight cents per pound.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I would ask the minister if due consideration has been given to the fact that express companies are to-day' doing a good deal of business formerly done by the Post Office Department. Will not this increase in registration have a tendency to assist the express

companies in diverting moTe of the business from the Post Office Department to themselves? L know as a matter of fact that in .a number of instances post offices have been closed in small centres where the rural mail has been fairly well covering the district, the express companies having taken over the business that was formerly done through the post office. Several of these offices, to my personal knowledge, contributed to the department .several hundred dollars of revenue over and .above all expenses. They have been closed and the-express companies are now doing the business which they formerly did. I understand that thousands of offices have been closed in this way, and I would ask the minister if there is any information as to the lasses that have been sustained or the prospective losses that will be sustained by this doubling of registration and the tendency which there will be to do business through express money orders.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend knows that so far as the carrying of letters is concerned the Post Office Department is the only medium that can be employed. If I understand his question, it is whether, if this registration fee is increased, express companies, will do business by transmitting money. I could not express .an opinion on that question .offhand, but I shall consider it.


Thomas Hay: 
Martin Burrell: This clause has nothing to do with catalogues. I have already

explained why it is thought desirable to increase the registration fee bringing it to exactly the same point that now obtains in the United States. I understand from the department that the present rate on catalogues is sufficiently high to fairly well cover the cost, it being eight cents a pound. In respect to what my hon friend says about the registration rate falling on the poorer people, the increased rate only falls on those who have money to send and the department has had no objection raised although this Bill has been printed for a long time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Rate on newspapers issued less frequently than monthly increased from 1 to 2 cents per pound; provision respecting circular area of 80 miles omitted; Postage rate on newspapers published oftener than _ once a week increased from J to 1 cent on and after 1st January, 1921, and after 1st January, 1922 to 1£ cents:
Mr. STEELE:: Before this clause carries, and I presume it will, I would like to offer a few remarks on the question of newspaper postage. We have had to-night a number of statements which I think have appealed to the members of the House and among others there was one made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) that 'the public is "plastered with taxes". My experience would lead me to the conclusion that the biggest plaster that is placed on the public at the present day is the tax that the people are required to pay in order to give our daily newspapers almost free transportation through the mails. It is a plaster of such proportions that I find it requires about $3,500,000 a yeaT to carry the daily papers of this country over and above the revenue derived from them. When we have such a plaster placed on the people I think we may well consider whether it should not be removed, and I presume the Government had in mind the removal of that plaster when they introduced {his Bill.
The deficit, as I said, on account of the newspapers is enormous. At the present time it is nothing more nor less than a method of subsidizing the newspapers, a subsidy such as no other enterprise in the country enjoys. It is a subsidy which, to my mind, cannot be justified at the present day. The financial situation of the country cannot permit it to continue.
While the hon. member for Maisonneuve criticised the department for the increased cost of the administration of the department, the House-not the department-is on 'trial in considering this bill by which. The department proposes increasing the rate on second-class matter from J cent a pound to 1 cent a pound. The House is on trial now because the House must decide whether that increase shall be made or not. If the House does not agree to increase the rate it must take the blame for continuing a very considerable portion of the present deficit in the Post Office Department.
In order that the House may more clearly understand what this means I want to give a few figures regarding some of the newspapers, because time will not permit me to take up all. I think it was the hon. member for Maisonneuve who, the other night, spoke of the newspapers being the medium for the conveyance of free thought. It occurs to me, after looking into this matter that what the newspapers are more concerned about than the carrying of free thought is free transportation, and in order to prove that and to let the House understand how much concerned they are in free transportation I propose giving some figures. I am going to jefer to only a few papers in this statement, those of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.
I find that at the present time the Mont* real Daily Star is paying into the Post Office Department for the carriage of that paper through the mails $24,086 per year. If they were paying 1% cents which this Bill proposes levying on newspapers after January 1922, they would on their present circulation pay about $144,000 per year. No person claims that the cent and a half tax will pay the full cost of transmission of these papers through the mail. It will not nearly pay the cost of transmission. If the higher rates suggested in this Bill were in force the Montreal Star would at the present time be paying $144,000 instead of $24,000, or it would be paying nearly $120,000 more than it is. The country is subsidizing the Montreal - Star to the extent of $120,000 a year for the despatch of their product through the mails and to their customers. Let us take another paper. The Montreal Gazette paid last year $1,739 for the carriage of their papers through the mail.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The best newspaper in Canada.


Michael Steele: Perhaps I can give some reasons why it should be, before I am through. If they were paying 1J cents per pound they would pay on their present circulation about $11,250. Therefore the Montreal Gazette is being subsidized by Ithe taxpayers of Canada at the present time

to the amount of about $9,500 a year for distributing (their paper to their customers throughout the country. The Toronto Globe pays at the present time about $12,955 per year for the transmission olf ilts papers through the mail. If it were paying at the rate of 1J cents per pound it would require to pay in the neighbourhood of $75,- . 000 per year. The Toronto Globe is being subsidized by the people of Canada (to'the extent of $62,000 a year for the distribution of its product to its customers. The Toronto Mail and Empire pays $7,577 into the postal revenues. If it were being charged at the rate of li cents a pound it would require to pay in the neighbourhood of $57,000 per year. The Toronto Mail and Empire is being subsidized to the extent of almost $50,000 per year for the delivery of their product to their customers throughout the country.
Now we come down to the newspapers of Ithe .city of Ottawa, and I have difficulty in being exact on this matter because I find (the amounts there are in three portions. The postal returns show the revenue derived from the Evening Journal, (the revenue derived from the Evening Citizen, and then the revenue derived from the Citizen and Journal morning editions together. But assuming the morning editions are about equal in circulation my estimate gives this result:	The
Journal, both editions, pays now about $2,306. If it were paying at the rate of li cents a pound it would have to pay $13836 to the revenue of the country. The Ottawa Journal is being subsidized by the people of Canada to the extent of $11,500 a year. Then the Citizen-that paper which demands such uprightness, and honour and everything good in the public men of this country-what does it show? It pays $1,807 into the postal revenues. At the rate of li cents pound it should have paid $10,844. The Citizen is subsidized Ito the extent each year of over $9,000. Now these are only a few of the papers.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: What do you figure to be the cost of carrying this newspaper matter? A cent and a half a pound? Because you say these newspapers have been "subsidized'' to that extent, and you base your calculations on the one and a half cent a pound. If that be the case, perhaps you are right.


Michael Steele: That is not nearly the
cost. I am not in a position to state what the cost is, but I understand this li cents per pound is proposed in order Ito meet,

or approximately meet, the present deficit in carrying the daily newspapers. I do not think it is claimed that ilt even does that-


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that question may I ask-


Michael Steele: -but as we all know, and as we have been told, it is going to be necessary to make new arrangements with the railway companies for the carriage of mails in the very near future .which will entail probably several million dollars additional expenditure, and a very large portion of that should be charged up to the daily newspapers of this country because they form a very large proportion of the mail matter being carried. As I understand it they constitute about fifty-four per cent of the mail matter that is carried through the mails, and they only pay about one per cent of the revenue.


William Foster Cockshutt: Could the hon. gentleman give us the figures in connection with the transmission of the Grain Growers' Guide through the mails?


Michael Steele: No, I have not the figures for the Grain Growers' Guide.


John Flaws Reid: It is too bad.


Michael Steele: I have no doubt it too is being carried at a loss to the Postal Department.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame!


Michael Steele: Now the argument is
used-and it was adopted by
12 p.m. the member for Maisonneuve Mr. Lemieux)-that the newspapers perform a gTeat service to the country. We are all willing to admit that they could perform a much greater service to the country than they are doing at the present time. I claim that to-day the contents of the press of Canada do not justify the taxing of the people of this country to the extent of between two and three or four million dollars to carry the products of those newspaper offices to the people in all parts of the Dominion who have subscribed to them. Now, you may think that is rather a bold statement, but I want to give you the opinion of another journal -which perhaps is in a better position than I am to judge in this matter. In the issue of the Financial Post published in Toronto on June 5th headed "Parliaments and the Press" there appeared an article relating to this subject, and although it is

somewhat lengthy I hope you will bear with me while I read it:
, Parliaments and the Press.
There has for some time been a general complaint among members of our Legislatures over the unsatisfactory records of their doings that are given to the public in the daily newspapers. An antagonistic attitude has developed. This was openly voiced by the leaders in the Ontario Legislature last week. There is no doubt the newspapers are not doing full justice to the important questions or to the really valuable work done by the great majority of the members. In the old days every member who said anything worth while got a paragraph or more. Present day reporters are trained to look for the unusual, for the Incidents that are likely to create thrills. Editorial comments to be popular must be critical. Space the big dailies used to have for the more serious problems is not now available. The higher cost and need to reduce expenses are likely to lead to further curtailment and the giving of the space to sensations that will sell the paper. This is unfortunate because at no time was it more important for the public to know of the real work that is being done by their elected representatives. Never before have the Governments and Legislatures in Ontario and Quebec, for example, done as much good, honest, constructive work. At Ottawa, where the writer has followed the Budget debates very closely for over 35 years, he can recall none in which the speeches showed a more conscientious desire to do what was in the national interests. But the country does not know this. It should, if our legislators are to be encouraged with the moral support they deserve.
**********
The Ontario Legislature proposes to grapple with the problems and it is well worth the consideration of the House of Commons and Senate. Perhaps the solution would be for the Legislatures to prepare, under the direction of a committee of all parties, an official synopsis of each day's proceedings. This should be brief, but complete. Dominion Governments have been very generous to the press. For many years they have given large subsidies to aid in developing a news service. Therefore they could not in decency refuse to publish these reports.
That is the opinion of the Financial Post.


Mr. RINFRET:: Is that a weekly?


Michael Steele: Yes, a weekly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Is the Financial Post affected by this regulation?


Michael Steele: Yes, it will be affected by this regulation. It will be effected the same as the others.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It does not come under paragraph 3, anyway.


Michael Steele: It does come under paragraph 2 of the clause.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask a question of the ihon. gentleman?


Michael Steele: Permit me to continue, thank you.
Those of us who read the newspapers know that the daily edition of almost every daily newspaper that I have named, and many others, is full of misleading articles regarding what is going on in this country. If those misleading articles were cut out it would reduce the cost to the country for carrying these newspapers through the mails. It would also reduce the demand for newsprint very materially and would effect economies in many other ways. We have noticed that in the papers, represented in the press gallery of this House, day after day during this session members of the House have been maligned, that the people of the country have been misled and deceived as to what is going on here; and with that taking place we are asked to come to the help of those newspapers, to subsidize them, and deliver their goods to all parts of the country practically free of cost. I doubt if this Parliament will agree to that; I know that the people of the country, if they had the facts before them, would not justify and would not support it. Newspapers-given every privilege that newspapers can be given-through their representatives in the press gallery, have adopted a new code of ethics. A few weeks ago they seemed to adopt this code: If we cannot get what we want in the House of Commons we will slam the members. That is a high code of ethics, is it not for the leading and important daily press of this country to adopt? They sacrifice truth to personal pique and personal vanity, and for that the representatives of the public and the people themselves have td suffer.
Some reference was made a little while ago to the Montreal Gazette as the best English newspaper in Canada. Let me point out what -was said in an article published a few weeks ago in the Montreal Gazette about the members of this House, referring to that very popular topic in the Press Gallery during the present session, an increase in indemnity. The Montreal Gazette had an editorial in which occurred these sentences:
It may not be quite fair to stigmatize this rapacity as a game of grab

That is the way the Montreal Gazette viewed what was supposed to be a demand for increased indemnity.
-yet it is repellent to morality that the representatives of the people should, without consultation of their masters, appropriate to themselves" a larger proportion of the proceeds of the taxes they levy.
And so on. Well, how would the newspaper that characterizes as "rapacity" an alleged

demand for increase in indemnity characterize this? I find from a return that was brought down to the House this session that during the last five years the Montreal Gazette has received in advertising fees from the Government of Canada $30,764, and that it has received for printing from the Government of Canada during the same period $377,245. "Rapacity"? That is the way the press characterizes what is supposed to be a demand for reasonable indemnity; ft have no words which will characterize this act on the part of a newspaper in receiving that amount from the public treasury of this country. "Repellent to morality"? I believe that will be the feeling the people will have and many members of this House will have when we see a paper which is receiving such enormous sums from the Government of Canada choosing to insult the representatives of the people as it has done; choosing to deceive the public as to what the representatives are doing; choosing to falsify the conduct of members and in every way endeavouring to give the people a false impression as to what members of this House are doing. Now the 'Gazette ends up this article with this sentence:
When the state of the public finances gives cause for grave concern.
Yet the public finances are considered sufficiently good to enable this country to subsidize the daily press to the extent of between three and four million dollars a year. Why, as I Tead those statements and remembered that the Ottawa Journal and the Ottawa Citizen were together subsidized to the extent of $20,000 a year I imagined that almost any other concern or any other individual who was carrying around in his pocket these days the sum of $20,000 of Government funds would very probably see worse things, when he was near to Hull, than round robins. That seems to be about the worst these papers could see under the conditions.
It is said that the newspapers cannot meet this increase at once. Well, it is my opinion that the newspapers should be put on the same basis as any other business institution. There is no business man, no professional man, no labouring man, no citizen of this country, who has not had to modify his methods and his business in order to suit changed conditions, and there is no more reason why the daily newspapers should not modify their business methods in order to meet this situation than there is why any other firm or individual should

not do the same. The newspapers should not receive any favours; they should not be enabled to carry on their business without worry or annoyance on account of the country choosing to carry their papers free of cost. Either they must meet this deficit or the people of the country must do so. To my mind the newspapers ought to meet it.
Now, when I say this about the daily newspapers, I want to exclude from my remarks the small district dailies, which, I believe, are the best representatives of the daily press of Canada to-day. As I look over Western Ontario I see such papers as the St. Thomas Times, Brantford Expositor, Woodstock Sentinel Review, Stratford Herald, Stratford Beacon, Galt Reporter-


Edmond Proulx: London Advertiser.
Mr, STEELE:-and numerous others; these are the papers which, I believe, have been giving a sane lead to the people of Western Ontario during the past two or three years. They are not -profiting to any great extent by this provision. While they will perhaps be able to save a little in postage, they are up against the competition of these larger papers which, on account of cheap rates of transmission through the mails are enabled to send their papers from Toronto and Hamilton into districts that should be left, and would largely otherwise be left, to these smaller daily papers. They send out their papers into these districts at comparatively low cost, distributing them through the post office and over the rural mail routes at practically no cost; and very frequently they cut their prices in order to undersell the local paper. Often they sell their papers in the outside towns at a lower rate than t-hev sell them in the city of publication.
Then, I would exclude the weekly papers, which are referred to in this clause. T am glad that special consideration is being given to the small papers; I wish it'were more liberal than it is. These papers are doing a community service, each in its own particular part of the country.
I think that the 'Government ought to modify this clause and instead of including daily newspapers, weekly papers, magazines and all such publications as second-class matter, there should be a special clause for magazines. If there is one class of publication more than another that is deserving of special consideration at this time it is the magazines that are endeav ouring to obtain a foothold in order to give to the Canadian people at a reasonable

rate Canadian literature of a good type and characteristic of the Canadian spirit.
I was going to refer to the advertising in the newspapers. A very large portion of our daily newspapers is filled with advertising matter. We heard from the minister to-night that advertising catalogues and so on are charged eight cents a pound for carriage through the mails, whereas advertising matter that appears in our daily papers has been carried at the rate of one-quarter cent per pound. Under this Bill we propose to charge li cents per pound. Now, why should advertising in the daily papers be carried at a lower rate than advertising which is contained in catalogues? Let me read what the Montreal Witness says about this:
Far different it is with the thousands on thousands of tons of advertising stuff carried for the big city dailies absolutely free within a certain zone, and for a quarter cent per pound to vast spaces in which the bargain day sales and want advertisements are of no use.
Here is a sheer waste-a crime against common sense and the cost of living as well as against our wasting forests, that ought to be penalized. The reading matter in newspapers may be classed as professional service rendered to the readers and treated on a non-commercial basis. The advertising has no such claim. It is as purely commercial as. the distribution of hand-bills and catalogues.
Yet we carry that at a mere fraction of the rate which we charge on catalogues.
But I want to bring to the attention of the committee another asipect of this ques-ion as it relates to the daily newspapers of our country. In looking over the Literary Digest of last week, I came across this page advertisement. Hon. members know that the Literary Digest is an American magazine that circulates in this country to a very large extent. A full page advertisement in that issue of the Literary Digest contains the following: I will not read the whole; I will read certain extracts from it. Speaking of the amount of business done by Canada in the United States, the large amount of goods purchased there, it says:
A country that buys $2,000,000 of TJ.S.A. goods per day should receive the earnest consideration of United States advertisers.
And the best way to reach this market, actual and potential, is to advertise in the daily newspapers of Canada.
The newspapers listed below represent the cream of Canadian dailies. They are the accepted1 medium of advertising. They go into almost every home. They are read by all who read. They cover Canada from coast to coast.
Each, in its field, is the leader of Canadian thought and effort. These newspapers provide United States manufacturers with a means of putting their goods before people who are doing more business, saving more money, buying and selling mote goods per capita than any other nation in the world.
Write direct to the following newspapers, or ask your advertising agency for data concerning them.
Amongst these newspapers, I notice several of those that I have mentioned this evening, including the Gazette and Star of Montreal and the Citizen and Journal of Ottawa. Of course, one would expect to find the latter two in that class. What does this mean? It means that, at a time when there is a general desire amongst the people of Canada that Canadian goods should be bought by the Canadian people, this subsidized press of Canada is sending out to manufacturers and business men of the United States this appeal: Give us of your advertising; advertise your goods in our pages, that we may get you customers in Canada and thus encourage Canadians to buy American goods. This increases competition with Canadian-made goods; it tends to counteract the propaganda which is being put up in a splendid spirit by Canada at the present time to encourage the purchase of Canadian goods. And it is done for what purpose? It is done merely that these newspapers may increase their revenues, without any thought on their part as to what the result will be on Canada or the Canadian people, knowing that if they can add several pages of advertising matter to each issue, that will be carried through the mails at the expense of the Canadian people.
How does this compare with the action of the weekly papers that I spoke of? There is not, in Ontario at least, a weekly paper that will accept an advertisement of a departmental store in the city of Toronto. Perhaps that is too sweeping a statement. I have not full knowledge of that,. but I know many weekly papers that continue to refuse large, well-paying advertisements from large departmental stores in Toronto. Why do they refuse those advertisments? They say: We are going to be loyal to our community; we are going to protect our business men against those advertisements; we are going to encourage our readers to buy goods at home. But these provincial dailies, with the subsidies which the people of Canada pay them, go out into the United States soliciting advertisements in order that they may encourage their readers to buy goods from American manufacturers and business men. There^ is no comparison to be made as regards the methods followed by these two classes of papers. For these reasons the smaller daily and weekly papers are entitled to consideration at the hands of Parliament.
Another matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the Government at this


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will not undertake
to reply to all the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Steele), for many reasons, one

of them being that I agree with him in much of what he has said. But I disagree with him on other points, and there is one point I wish to make. I think the hon. member is very harsh when he speaks of newspaper men, especially the members of the Press Gallery. He seems to have a grudge .against them. If my hon. friend will agree to meet them oft-ener, at meal hours, for instance, at the festal board of the restaurant, possibly he would know them better and would give them the merit they deserve. I have had the honour myself of being a member of the Press Gallery for many years, and I must tell my hon. friend that these gentlemen perform a very trying and hard work.


Michael Steele: In the days when the hon. gentleman was a member of the Press Gallery, I have no doubt his remarks were quite applicable.


Mr. RINFBET:: 
Mr. CHAPLIN:: The bon. gentleman does not contend for one moment, I suppose, that the rate proposed by (the Government covers the caist df carriage?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I 'am merely dealing with the conditions 'as they exlist to-day. The newspapers were paying one-fourth of a oenit (per pound. Their industry was on that basis, and now they are suddenly asked to contend with ia price four times as high. I readily admit that the prindSiple oif an increase in the rate is sound. My personal opinion is that some at least of the papers in this (Country are Itolo volumalnous. I think that, for instance, 'the daily, which covers twenty-five or thirty pages ia day is too voluminous. I think the information 238
should be presented in a 'condensed form and that the advertising rates should be raised in such a way that the departmental stores, for instance, (which obtain a full page df advertising at a certain price, should only get one-fouith or one-fifth oif that apace. I am polt speaking ,as a newspaper man; I aim simply giving my opinion as a member of this House. I think that the increase proposed here is too great and too sudden. This question has been open for a long while, and I have here a summary of 'the representations made in 1913. This question has been, not dealt with, but contemplated, for a great number of years, but nothing has so far been done >by the Government.


James Dew Chaplin: Why did not the newspapers readjust theliir conditions during that period?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it was up to the Government to bring about an increase in a gradual way, but it has not done it. It has permitted the newspapers to go on on the former basis, and then when conditions -are against the -newspapers,, when the prices of paper, wages, and everything else have gone up, the Government suddenly asks the -newspapers to pay this tremendous increase. The hon. member (Mr. Steele) established that i-n the case of one paper the increase will be from $25,000 to $144,000. I have no special .sympathy for the -paper he mentioned, but I think everybody will admit that it i-s hardly fair to an industry to create such a change in conditions within -such a short space o-f time. That is all I have to say to-night. I agree with the principle of this < measure because it will have a tendency gradually -to force the papers to condense their matter and to present their information in a more concise -form. I think it is hardly fair to increase the rate to li cents-. I think the proposal made by the Newspapers Association that the increase in second-class postal rates should be only .a flat rate of i cent to start with should be accepted by the Government, and I hope it will be.


John Flaws Reid: I regret that the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) should have scored our press as hard as he has done to-night. Where would we be today without the press? Where would we get our news? My good friend from South Perth claims that the people of Canada have been compelled to pay a subsidy to the press. Well, I do not think it is our *newspaper publishers that are to blame,



but rather the Government fox not waking up sooner and raising the rates fox the carriage of the newspapers.
With regard to the representatives of the press, sometimes,. I suppose, they write articles that are intended to amuse a little, but we should look upon that as a passing joke, and not forget the serious side of their work. I am not a newspaper man, but I read newspapers; I could not get along very well without them. I have it on very good authority from newspaper publishers that they are not complaining of an increase in the rate but they do complain, and I think rightly so, that a sudden increase of 300 per cent is altogether too drastic. One of the newspaper publishers writes to me in part as follows;
I think it will be a fair proposition to increase the postage at the present time from one-fourth of a cent per pound to one-half of a cent per pound, and next year, and every following year, make a similar increase until the Government has reached the place where they think they should be charging.
I think that is a very sound proposition. It would give our newspapers a chance to get in line and perhaps prevent many of them from being put out of business. If our newspapers and magazines and farm journals are called upon to pay this sudden increase of 300 per cent in transportation, it will add very considerably to their costs. As the hour is late I shall1 not detain the House further. I wish the minister to take this into consideration. I do not think this clause should be put through to-night. I think the contention of the newspaper publishers is a very fair one, that the rate should be increased from a quarter to half a cent, with a similar increase the next year and so on until we reach the point where it will pay us to carry newspapers through the mail.
Mr. RICHARDSON; I do not intend to occupy much of the time of the House at this late hour, but I want to refer to one or two points brought out by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). One of the chief objections to his speech, in my judgment, was his constant reiteration of the statement that the Government has "subsidized" the newspapers of the country, and he seems to have been especially vituperative towards the daily papers, He. has no -words but those of kindness so far as the magazines and weekly press are concerned, and though he defends the daily press of his own province, he denounces the daily press of the country generally, as being exceedingly offensive to him. I must 
resent with great force the position in which he seeks to place the daily press as having been subsidized for many years by the Government. He must know, as every hon. gentleman knows, that the policy of a low postal rate was established twenty or thirty years ago by this Parliament. The Parliament of Canada recognized, as I believe most intelligent citizens recognize, that the press of the country has an important educative influence on the entire people; and that very important fact having been recognized, a low rate was extended to all newspapers for carrying them throughout the country. Now, if the newspapers had taken advantage of that low rate and charged a high price for the papers there might be some justification for the position which the hon. member for South Perth took this evening. But you, Mr. Chairman, as indeed all hon. members will bear witness that all these twenty or thirty years the newspapers have been distributed to the people at not one farthing above cost. Take these great daily papers which my hon. friend from South Perth denounces so strongly, and you will find that they have been distributed to the people for an amount varying from a dollar to two dollars a year;-and this for a daily paper. I can tell the hon. members of this House that for twenty-five years the paper over the destinies of which I preside was distributed to the people of Winnipeg city at their homes at 25 cents a month, practically one cent a paper. We delivered the papers and collected the money, and I may say incidentally that we lost a large sum in the collection, because it is a very difficult matter to collect. But that policy has prevailed for the last twenty or thirty years. The newspapers never make a dollar. I do not believe that to-day in the entire Dominion there is a single newspaper that is making a farthing out of the people. The newspaper people in Canada have always sought to deliver the papers to the people at cost, and that has been the invariable policy. Now, after that policy has been pursued all these years, adopted by successive governments as a great benefit to the people, it is now proposed to increase the rate, at one fell swoop, by 300 per cent now, and by 500 per cent a little later on. I appeal to hon. gentlemen, surely that is not a wise course to take. If you take it, then you say that the policy pursued for the last quarter of a century was a wrong one. And you must take this fact into consideration: Coincident with this threatened increase of 500 per cent, the newspapers are now up against an

increase in newsprint which will go into effect on the 1st of July, an increase that will pretty nearly treble the cost of the white paper on which the newspapers are printed. Five or six years ago we obtained paper at $40 a ton; on the 1st of July we expect to pay $120 a ton. Then there are other increases-wages have doubled within the last three or four years. If, on top of all that, this Parliament increases the postal rate as is proposed, by 300 per cent now and 500 per cent a little later on, where are we going to land? I appeal to hon. members to realize the hardship of the proposal. Such a policy if pursued may probably result in putting a large number of newspapers out of business. The newspaper must perforce pass the cost on to the customers, and you merely increase the high-cost of living. If the newspaper is now obliged to take care of an increase in newsprint and to pay increased wages, and you add this additional 300 per cent, you increase the burden on them, and the Government and Parliament of this country will be sanctioning that increase. After all, let me repeat, the cost is always passed on to the consumer, and you are merely piling more and more on the horse until finally the burden will wreck the animal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask the hon. member a question? If the papers are being carried by the railways at a loss, then does not the consuming public of Canada pay indirectly through the deficits on the railway, or does not the railway company pay? Some one must make good the deficit.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, and I do not take the position that the newspapers should not pay a fair proportion of the costs? and perhaps at some future time they may pay all the cost of carrying these newspapers throughout the country. But if you treble the cost at one time, then I say that you are instituting an unwise policy, denying the wisdom of the policy followed in this country for the last thirty years. I agree with my confrere from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) that the cost might be increased gradually. If you doubled it tonight by this Bill and instead of a quarter of a cent you made it half a cent, an increase of one hundred per cent, with a little later on an increase of fifty per cent, and so on, you would give the newspapers an opportunity to adjust their position. But if you pile on 300 per cent at one stroke then you will place the newspaper in a very precarious position.
238J


An hon. MEMBER:: You want to cut off the dog's tail by inches.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the dog's tail
must come off it is just as well to cut it off by inches. But I do not think you should cut it off behind the ears to-night. Just along that line I appeal to the hon. gentleman that he should not increase the rate beyond one hundred per cent. I propose to move, if I can find a seconder, that instead of increasing the rate to one cent a pound we increase it to half a cent a pound at present.	[DOT]


Hugh Boulton Morphy: You would rather die of slow torture than be struck by lightning.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Exactly, I have no desire to be struck by lightning. For the life of me I cannot see why the weekly papers should go scot free. Is it the intention to allow the weekly papers within a certain zone to go free?


Martin Burrell: ies.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Why discriminate if you are going to make an increase of three hundred per cent for the daily papers?


Martin Burrell: It is only the rural
weeklies.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Even if it is only
the rural weeklies, I think everybody should pay something. I do not believe in letting any portion of the press off scot free when you are going to penalize the. daily press to the extent of three hundred per cent.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that there are certain papers in .the country that get their issues circulated for nothing?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Exactly. I just
asked the minister in chaTge that question and he says that rural weeklies are to go absolutely free.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman follow the practice of selling his paper cheaper away from Winnipeg than he does at home?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No; while a great
many papers do that I have never adopted the practice. We charge as much away from home as we do at home. We equalize the price although a great many do not follow that practice.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Can the practice be
justified?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not think it is justified; I have never approved of it myself.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to support the proposal of the minister as laid down in the Bill, that the newspapers of this country shall pay a cent a pound for the carriage of their papers through the mails. My only fault with the proposal of the minister is that it does not go far enough. I would go a little farther, but I am willing to vote for the proposition of the minister. The minister told us when introducing this resolution the other day, that the Dominion of Canada carried 87,000,000 pounds of newspapers during the past year and that the cost of carrying those newspapers was in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, and for that service the Government was paid $291,000. These -are figures that need to be thought about by this House before they talk about refusing the proposition made by the minister. I am not quite satisfied with the exact figures of the minister in respect to the cost of carrying this second-class mail matter. I wish to give the House some information from another source as to the cost of carrying second-class mail matter. I am going to quote two lines from a report on this subject made only last month to the United States Congress. The sentence is as follows:
It is true that the department estimates that the handling and transporting this class of mail costs the Government an average of eight cents a pound, hut it has not been the policy of the Government to charge a rate adequate to meet the cost.
If that is true, and I believe that our mail costs as much to carry as it costs in the United 'States, then our mail costs eight cents a pound to deliver and! it costs this country to deliver these 87,000,000 pounds of mail $6,960,000 a year, for which the news^ papers have paid to the Government $291,000. Now they object to paying less than one-sixth of the actual cost of delivery. The [DOT] hon. member for Maisonneuve the other night said that it was a shame to tax the newspapers. It is a fallacy to call this a tax. I disagree with my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and absolutely call it the name 'that belongs to it; it is nothing more nor less than a subsidy. A subsidy is what it is, and this country is paying $6,000,000, in my judgment, for a service for which it now proposes charging the newspapers $1,000,000.
I want to view this matter in another light, and I want the hon. member for Springfield just to bear with me -a minute and let me show how it affects some of the newspapers in the district from which he comes. There are in the provinces of Al-

berta and Saskatchewan some sixty newspapers large and small. These newspapers are required by the railways to pay $ 1.2b a hundredweight to take their unprinted paper into their teritory. And the Government have been delivering rival newspapers and leaving them at the door of the other man for a quarter of a cent a pound or 25 cents per hundred. I would ask the hon. member for Springfield if that is a fair deal. I do not think he will reply because I know he is too fair to say that it is. It is anything but fair.
The hon. member for Springfield told us in what a wonderful way the newspapers have been working and how he had worked hard and given something for nothing. I am glad to hear it, because we do not generally get something for nothing.
Those papers in Alberta, paying a $1.25 for their freight, and paying for their inks, are obliged to compete with newspapers delivered for twenty-five cents per hundred' weight. That is something that should be considered as against the dollar now proposed by the Government.
There is another feature. The hon. member for Springfield told us that he was selling his newspaper below cost. That is one of my causes of complaint against him. The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) spoke to us the other night about dumping. One of my causes of complaint is the policy pursued by certain newspapers in respect to my own town. A newspaper in Hamilton sells in that city for $3.60 a year. The same newspaper, delivered practically free of charge by this Government, is sold to me in St. Catharines for $2 a year.


Robert Lorne Richardson: At the present time?


James Dew Chaplin: That is the latest information I have. At -any rate that was the relative price, whether it is the price now or not. When that paper sold at $2 in St. Catharines it sold at $3.60 in Hamilton. That is correct. Now I do not think that is fair.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not think so.


James Dew Chaplin: Now I want to give a quotation in order to show hon. members that all the newspapers of Canada are not agreed on this matter. The member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) the other night told us of the meeting of the Press Association, and while I know he did not want- to misinform the House still he led it to believe- and no doubt a great many of the members did believe-that the result of a meeting

which he attended represented the concensus of opinion of the whole of the newspapers of the country. But there is a difference of opinion on the matter, and I want to read something from a western paper, one that I received recently, regarding the postal rates, and this is it:
T. N. Miller of the Moose Jaw Times proposed, and L. Dalberthonson of Chauvin, Alta., seconded the following resolution, which was carried:
"Whereas the Post Office Department of Canada has under consideration an increase in the second class postal rates, and whereas it is shown that the present flat rate of 1 cent per pound for newspapers and periodicals entails a serious annual loss to the department;
"Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Division of the Canadian Press Association place itself on record as favouring an increase in postal rates on newspapers based on the cost of transportation and based on keeping in mind the relation between the rate on newspapers and periodicals and other second-class matter transported and distributed by the Post Office Department.
"Second, that in arriving at a rate for newspaper postage the principle of the zone system should be adopted as the most equitable basis, which principle was approved by resolution of the Canadian Press Association and Canadian Press, Limited, in 1913, and that equitable rates for the zones be fixed in order that newspapers in smaller communities shall not be subject to discriminating transportation and distribution charges favourable to publications in larger centres

a discrimination in rates that results in an annual deficit for the Post Office Department.
I now wish to quote a line or two from a newspaper nearer home to further show that the feeling is not all on one side on this matter, but that there is a difference of view among the newspapers in regard to it. The St. Catharines Standard, in its issue of March 4,. 1920, states:
The smaller city dailies expect no 'favours from the Government, but they have a perfect and unassailable right to protest against a bonus being continued to newspapers in low postal rates costing the country millions of dollars annually and which works out to their own injury and ultimate destruction in many cases.
In the same editorial the Standard also says:
The Toronto papers are not ashamed to take advantage of this bonus to sell their papers at a lower price by mail, in competition with the smaller dailies, than they ask from any other class of their readers. The Globe, for instance, which preaches daily against customs tariffs and bounties, receives without protest or reproach a practical bonus from the country to assist it in its ruinous competition with the smaller city dailies.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What about the Mail and Empire?


James Dew Chaplin: The Mail and Empire is in exactly the same class.
An horn. MEMBER: Protection.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not mentioning the Mail and Empire, or the Globe, in particular. In this matter one is on the same footing as the other.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They preach different doctrines, though.


Mr. BELAND:: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: Not from Hades, I hope?


James Dew Chaplin: I could speak of " an
hon. gentleman angularly across the chamber," but that is too long an expression to use. I did not mean the expression that some hon. gentlemen by their laughter indicate that they know very well.


Jacques Bureau: How do you yourself
know?


James Dew Chaplin: I have this to say, be- '
cause I do not want to take up any more time of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Dew Chaplin: I merely want to say
that I hope the minister will not recede one particle from his original resolution. I am sorry to have to say that I will not support anything but the resolution nor any amendments of the kind that have been proposed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I merely wish to call attention to the fact that paragraph 2 deals with local papers; and I was surprised indeed to hear the remarks of my good friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) who seemed not to be aware that local papers in his own province had been car-

ried free of charge by the Post Office Department.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It should not be. It is unbusinesslike.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That may be so, but before I get through with what I have to say the hon. gentleman may change his mind, because, the local papers that are distributed in his district are most anxious to have that state of affairs continue.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I trust the hon. member will not imply that my view on a public question is going to be influenced by the effect it will have on a newspaper in my constituency. I hope not.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have
no doubt that is quite right so far as the hon. gentleman is concerned. I merely wish to call the attention of the committee to this fact. In 1918, we had 1,018 local weekly papers having a circulation of from 2,000 to 3,000 within a radius of forty to fifty miles. To-day we have 110 fewer of these newspapers. Conditions that have existed in these local districts have driven 110 out of existence. In the county of Lambton we had 15 local papers five years ago; 7 of these have gone out of existence. I do not need to tell hon. members what the local paper means to the district in which it is published; I have not time to tell them of the many advantages which result to the people, especially in the rural districts, through the circulation of these papers. My good friends who live in the western provinces will specially appreciate their value. In Prince Edward Island the local papers all have a circulation of over 2-,000. The bulk of the local papers in practically all the eastern provinces have a circulation of over 2,000, and the same is true of the larger number of the papers in the province of Quebec. This clause limits free distribution to those local papers which have circulations of 1,000 or less. Practically all the local papers in the following towns in Ontario have a circulation of over 2,000: Cornwall, Renfrew, Pembroke, Picton, Osh-awa, Petrolia, Arnprior, Dunnville, Am-herstburg,, Simcoe, Glencoe, -Strathroy, Leamington, Barrie, Orillia, Walkerton, Tillsonburg, Acton, Grimsby, Paris, and I could name others. Practically all the papers in these towns 'have a circulation of between 2,000 and 2,500. I urge the minister to increase that figure of 1,000 to 2,500.
Just a word with regard to the magazines. The magazines and the weekly papers 
should receive different treatment from that accorded to the daily papers. The magazines are doing a splendid work in the education of our people along the lines of the development of science, industry, trade, and so on. I hope that the minister will take into consideration the advisability of placing them at least on the half-cent basis. Even that is an increase of one hundred per cent, but I believe it would be in the best interests of the people as a whole to place the magazines in that position. As to the dailies, I do not agree with hon. gentlemen who say that the last pqnny should be exacted from them in connection with the position that they are in today. I believe that we should increase gradually our demands on the dailies from year to year. The first increase that we make upon these dailies should not exceed three-quarters of a cent per pound, payable in 11921; subsequent increases could be made later. I hope that the min- -ister will accede to the requests that I have made.
Mr. MteMASTER:	The principle that
should guide us in dealing with this question is that the papers, no matter what their circulation or the area of their distribution, should all be obliged to pay a fair consideration for the public services which they use, and that they should be brought to that position as quickly as is compatible with giving them a fair chance, having in mind the fact that they are moving from an uneconomic condition to an economic condition. To my mind, to carry mail matter of any sort free is absolutely unbusinesslike and unreasonable. Everybody should pay, but as we are trying to mend an old-established condition we should mend it in such a way as not to work harm to these people, who have been the beneficiaries or, perhaps, the victims of the condition in the past.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: We have heard something about the necessity of making the newspapers pay carriage charges and about the necessity of having the increase in those charges imposed gradually.
I think there is something to be said in favour of both suggestions. It might be well to make a more gradual increase than is provided for, though I think the increase is not so very abrupt as some people would make it appear. How would it do to make an immediate increase to one-half cent per pound and then make a further increase later, say January first, to three-quarters of a cent per pound?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The increase does not take effect until next January.


Levi Thomson: I am satisfied with the suggestion that it begin next January, but the increase to one-half cent per pound might begin at once, the three-quarter cent rate become effective in January, and the rate be gradually brought up until we feel we are on safe ground. I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Master) that local papers should receive exactly the same treatment as the big dailies which are carried hundreds of thousands of miles.
, Mr. McMASTER:	I did not make any
such statement; I said that they should pay a fair price in proportion to the public service of which they avail themselves.


Levi Thomson: I accept my hon. friend's statement, although it is rather a reconstruction of what he said.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, that is what I
said.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member
(Mr. L. Thomson) has not directly accepted the statement of the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I think it should be accepted absolutely.


Levi Thomson: All right, I accept it. I had a letter from a newspaper man in a town of 1,000 inhabitants who was rather surprised to find that his paper had a circulation of over 1,000. He suggested that to limit that exemption to one thousand would be placing a premium on incompetence.
If a newspaper in a little town of 1,000 inhabitants can have over 1,000 of a circulation, there is something in that objection. Either the suggestion of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) should be accepted and the number w'hich will be exempted increased to 2,000 or 2,500-I am not suggesting what the number should be -or the first 1,000 should be exempted, if the matter can be arranged in that way, and then the newspapers should be allowed to pay whatever shall be agreed upon on the number over that 1,000. Either of those suggestions should be adopted by the minister, and it would be well also to adopt the suggestion which has been very generally made, that the increase in daily papers be a little more gradual.


Martin Burrell: It has, of course, been of value to listen to the discussion and the various suggestions expressed by members
on both sides of the House, and I am not going to elaborate on any of those arguments. Before I move the amendment I am now going to move, I may say that since the Bill was published we have had views presented to this department from all parts of the country, and the department has given them all possible consideration with a view of doing what was right and just, so far as the department and officials concerned can see the whole question. First, to deal with subclause (2) of clause 3, the department recognised that it would perhaps be a hardship to limit that free circulation which I think was given first by Sir William Mulock, which, at least, has been given for a good many years, and to say to a paper that has a circulation of 1,500 or 2,000 or 2,100: You shall not enjoy that freedom at all. That would put a large number of struggling weekly papers in the country, doing a great deal of good, out of existence. Therefore, I am going to move an amendment along the line suggested by my hon friend (Mr. Armstrong). I move:
That subclause (2) of clause 3 be struck out and the following clause inserted in lieu thereof:
"Newspapers and periodicals published not more frequently than once a week in any city, town or village which has a population of not more than ten thousand persons-
That is instead of 5,000 as the subclause reads at present.
__shall be entitled to be transmitted by mail
free of postage to the extent of a circulation of 2,500 copies per issue within a distance of forty miles from their place of publication.
I might say in reference to this, that the whole plan was designed to stop what was manifestly an abuse, namely, a free circulation of weekly newspapers of big cities, which newspapers were in a prosperous condition. A weekly newspaper published in a city like Montreal or Toronto could be despatched free within a radius of forty miles. In Toronto, a newspaper could choose the zone between Toronto and Hamilton and despatch absolutely free through Toronto and Hamilton the issue of a big weekly paper, thus imposing an unnecessary burden upon the country. I think this amendment will meet the situation very well.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What was the circulation before that was allowed?


Martin Burrell: No circulation was
mentioned. The circulation in the Bill as printed is 1,000. It has been brought to the attention of the department that in various

cities in Ontario and some further East and elsewhere the circulation of a weekly newspaper may go to 2,000 or 2,500 or 3,000, and we thought that a weekly newspaper with a larger circulation could well afford to pay.	[DOT]


Robert Lorne Richardson: The minister has increased the limit of population of a village from 5,000 to 10,000?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not like to
oppose the minister's view, but that seems to be aggravating the former position. There have been expressed in this House views which have impressed me, to the effect that it is not fair that any publication whatever should get off absolutely free; that the transportation facilities of the country should be placed at their disposal without any charge whatever. Notwithstanding that, we find that the limit of population is increased from 5,000 to 10,000, and if a wrong existed before, this amendment, in my judgment, is increasing the wrong.


Martin Burrell: I do not think my hon. friend understands the situation. The question of population was never mentioned before. When this provision was inserted in the original Act, it was designed to help a number of the smaller rural papers of the country ; but under the wording of the Act, any weekly newspaper, no matter whether . it was published in a city of 500,000, would get free postage. This eliminates all that, and these papers which stand on a good footing and can well afford to pay, will have to pay, and even in smaller towns of 5,000 or 10,000 population, if weekly newspapers have a circulation of more than 2,500, they have to pay on that issue. It leaves the small weekly newspaper struggling along with the privileges it has always had.
Mr. MoMASTER: There is supposed to be a principle upon which the public life of this country should be conducted, and that is: "Equal justice for all and special privileges for none." This amendment aggravates the viciousness of the proposal contained in the Bill. It is not right to subsidize a paper because it happens to be published in a city or town or village with a population under 10,000 and because it has a circulation of under 2,500. To do that means to say that A, in a town of say 9,000 conducting a paper with a circulation of 2,300 will get his paper carried for nothing, while B in the next town, which has a population of 12,000 publishing a newspaper with 
a circulation of 2,700 will have to pay the rate that other papers are paying. That is wrong in principle, and I protest against it, and I purpose voting against the amendment.	.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) has evidently never lived in a small town or he would not speak as he has done. These local papers are delivered free in that town and in the surrounding country to a very large extent. They are placed in the post office and simply handed out by the postmaster, or they are sent out to the rural routes for miles and miles around that little town. When the hon. gentleman talks aljout an expense on the Post Office Department, he is entirely wrong.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the papers are carried by the rural route for miles and miles around the town, that costs the people of Canada something.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: All right.	'


Donald Nicholson: Following the principle laid down by my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster), if there be a principle involved, that all of these newspapers must pay for the service they are receiving-
Mr. MoMASTER: That is the principle we should try to adopt.
Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) -then the large daily newspapers would have to pay, as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has stated, six or seven cents a pound. If we are going to carry the principle to its logical conclusion and tax the paper that is carried forty miles and no further, what the service is worth, then we must go back and tax the paper that is carried 500 or 600 or 2,000 or 3,000 miles in proportion, and we shall have to work out a tariff rate just the same as you have for other commodities.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why not?


Donald Nicholson: It is too
late to go into that argument row; but we are dealing with the question when we are simply charging a daily paper a small portion of what it is costing to carry the daily paper. If we are going to let the daily paper off with five, or four, or three cents a pound on any quantity whatever when we are carrying it any distance from forty miles up to three thousand miles, surely it is fair to give some advantage to the weekly paper that is circulated within forty miles. On the larger question my own

opinion is that it is very doubtful whether the Parliament of Canada should undertake to create a tariff on newspa/pers through which the people of this country, particularly in the remote sections, get their ideas-whether correct or not I am not going to discuss-just the same as upon any other commodity. It is a question whether it is not in the interests of the people to make it easy for the newspapers to get into circulation. There is a limit beyond which you cannot go. As to the small newspaper, if we are going to make1 a concession to the larger newspaper such as this Bill proposes, surely the small newspaper is entitled to some concession, and you cannot give them any concession under the present proposal unless you give them the 40-mile zone the minister provides for in this Bill.


William Foster Cockshutt: This has been a very enlightening discussion indeed, and though the hour is getting early (I think we are justified in spending a few more moments on it, although I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes. I agree for once with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) -and11 believe it is the first time I have the privilege of agreeing with any principle laid down by the hon. member in financial matters,-that every public service that is rendered by this Government, whether by the railways, ships, post office, telegraph, or telephone, if we own one, should at least be self-sustaining. I have made an appeal in this House on two or three occasions this session to have the railway rates, both passenger and freight, advanced, although it would mean a considerably increased expenditure to some concerns in which I am interested. 1 have made that appeal at least twice, but apparently it has fallen on deaf ears so far. I hope it may bear fruit some day. It has been generally contended here to-night that we are subsidizing the press of Canada to the amount of about $5,000,000 per annum. I have heard my friends opposite talk about a subsidized press in this country a good many times, and I always thought they were wrong when they used that word1, but now after hearing what has been said to-night as to the way we are carrying the newspapers over this country I feel they are right. I do not like to offend my good friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson), who is a newspaper man. but I think that in asking that this rate be only 1 cent he is asking for too much of a reduction.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What would you
suggest?


William Foster Cockshutt: I think this advance should have gone into effect at least five years ago. We shall only be catching up a very small proportion of what we have lost in the last five or ten years. Notice is given that the new rates will not become operative until January next.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Make it retroactive.


William Foster Cockshutt: My friend suggests
that the rate should be made retroactive. That would not please my hon. friend from Springfield and other hon. gentlemen. As a matter of ordinary business the rates should have been advanced long ago. There is no doubt that this country has lost almost a score of million dollars within the last few years through not changing the rate. We have taxed every conceivable thing lately, and for some of the taxes we pay we get no service at all. Take the luxury tax that has just been proposed, and the income tax. The money is taken but no service whatever is rendered. The same is- true of the business tax. Now here we have a big service rendered at a price of not more than ten or fifteen per cent of its cost. Surely under those conditions it is not wise to ask that this Government should continue that rate for a moment longer than is necessary, although, -of course, fair notice should be given to the press. Many of the newspapers are good friends of mine. I do not grumble about the press abusing me. I get "bouquets" sometimes, it is true; perhaps II deserve them; we have all to take our bumps. II have not got up in this House in the last five years to complain of anything the press has said of me, not even the Western press. Some of the criticisms come by letter and others by newspaper. That is all right. I let them pass.
I	think the press does not always give the best education that it might give, but my views may be wrong. I do not like the unsigned editorial; I never did. A good many people read an editorial and think that is public opinion. It is not public opinion at all. It is the opinion of one man, and he is often paid to write a certain class of article which would often be very different if he were writing his own views. It is only the opinion of one man, and he may not be the best class of man even at that.
There is one point that has not been brought out, and as to which I should like the minister to give me some information. I want to know if the minister has taken into account the amount we get from the American newspaper that is published over the border -and that circulates in vast num-

bers through our part of the country? What proportion of the postage on American, papers coming into Canada goes into the coffers of the people of Canada? I see some of my friends shaking their heads. I suppose we get it all, then. The papers from Buffalo come into our town, very freely. I presume they pay a very low rate in Buffalo. I want to know from the minister how much of that revenue that is paid to the United States postal department comes into the coffers of the Canadian Government. I think it will be found that we are carrying American newstpapens on our side of the line and making delivery of them at rates that we are denying to our own Canadian papers. If that is so, ilt is a false situation, and some corrective means should be found. I suppose the answer will be that we are in a postal union with the United States, and that they make a collection on their side and possibly pay us a small amount. I do not know whether the minister is paying attention to this question, but I would ask him what portion of the postage on American papers coming into Canada goes into the coffers of our Post Office Department?


Martin Burrell: None of it, I am infoamed, unless they happen to be re-mailed in Canada. It is the same with our papers on the other side of the line.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have sat quiet
for the last three or four weeks when the Budget proposals were being discussed, so I am going to talk for a few minutes now. I regret that we have not heard from the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) on this question. He is a distinguished journalist and a man of very wide experience, and I would sit as one at the feet of Gamaliel if he were to speak on this question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would you profit as much as did the apostle?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Seeing that it is
not the hon, member for Brome, I think I would derive some profit. I did not quite appreciate a remark that the minister made with regard to these weekly papers. He justified the carrying of these papers free at public expense on the ground that they did a great deal of good. I think that remark tends to discriminate against the daily paper. I hesitate to spring into the field in defence of the daily paper, but I want to say as a journalist of some experience, if the weekly paper does a great deal of good, what about the great daily news-

paper? One hon. gentleman says they do a great deal of harm. I do not think so. A great modem daily newspaper, with the news of the world dished up in acceptable form, and with those features that appeal to different classes of the public, its family section, its illustrations, and its funny pictures, and so forth, must perforce be of vast benefit to the'people of this country, and we have many such great dailies in Canada. I do not wish to plead this case unduly, but it does seem to me that the argument in favour of a gradual increase iis one that the minister ought nolt to resist. I think that in time-it need not be too long-the newspapers perhaps should pay the cost of transportation, but to press the whole burden on them at once seems to me to be an unwise proceeding.
Before I sit down I want to say, after listening to the debates for the last few weeks, that all this talk about 'taxation, and taxation, and taxation, has been getting on my nerves; and it does seem to me that after having imposed taxation on pretty nearly everything we eat and wear it will undoubtedly perplex and irritate a great section of the country if undue taxation is now placed upon the newspapers.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: lit seems to me that
the increase proposed is too sudden. Newspapers have been subscribed for for a year or two at a certain rate,-$3 or $3.60 per annum, as the case may be, dependent on what they have to pay to the Government for transmission. Resides increased wages the newspapers have to contend now with an increase in the price of newsprint; I understand that the cost of paper is more than double what it was at the outbreak of the war, and. the newspapers were certainly not contemplating such a drastic proposal- as this. To ask them to pay an increase from a quarter of a cent to a cent is, I think, unfair, and the Government should show some sense of justice in this matter; I do not -think they are justified in taking the people by the throat, and as the newspapers have no means of increasing their rates so far as subscriptions already taken in are concerned,, this increase will mean a big loss to those papers. I think, therefore, that the minister would do well to consider the representations that have been made by those hon. members who have advocated a moderate course. A few moments -ago I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). Whenever there is a question of tariff under consideration

that. hon. gentleman is always anxious that we should go slow, and I am sure that if the newspaper business were near his heart he would ask the Government to go slow and slower.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) having been kind enough to refer to me, I feel it incumbent on me to say something on the subject, although I do not feel, justified at this date hour in making any extended remarks in regard to the usefulness of the press. Where an established privilege has'been granted in the past, even though improvidently, any drastic change is always objectionable. I agree that the newspapers should contribute more liberally than they have done in the past to the revenue of the country, in view of the many claims which are now being made on the public treasury; and I concur with the minister in his desire to get extra revenue. But I think he should obtain that revenue by gradual means and not by any precipitate measure. That, briefly,, is the view I wish to express on this subject.


Martin Burrell: I move that after the
word "week" in the twenty-seventh line ^of clause 3, subclause (3) the following words be inserted:
-and the newspapers and periodicals described in the immediately preceding subsection upon any copies in excess of the circulation of 2,5'00 copies.
I move to amend the clause further by striking out the words "one cent" in the twenty-eighth line and substituting Ithe words "three quarters of a cent." In reference to this second amendment, I have listened carefully to Ithe arguments advanced on both sides of the House to-night, and I may say that the department has had during the last two or three weeks an enormous number of representations on the subject. Views have been expressed from all sources along various lines, and although I still believe that the principle of trying to gelt the people to pay for public service is right, I am prepared to make a concession. However, in spite of the protests that have been made by the press that they should nolt be compelled to pay more than half a cent a pound at this time, so that they may adjust themselves at a latter date to a higher figure, I do not think that they should continue at the present rate of a quarter of a cent; nor should we accept the suggestion of half a cent. The least we ought to accept is three-quarters of a cent, which is a compromise
that might at all events be fairly satisfactory to those who hold strong views on either side of the question. At present they are paying a quarter of a cent, and this will make Ithem pay three-quarters, and we propose to leave in the Bill the provision as it stands to make this double on the first of January, 1922. Whatever burden this may be on the people, and however much we may sympathize wilth the condition in regard to the shortage of newsprint, I think it will be conceded that this proposal is a fair compromise.


Michael Steele: When we realize how much the country is contributing for the transmission of papers through the mail, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to ask that ithe newspapers should pay one cent a pound, because that does not come near to meeting the cost of their transmission. I appreciate all that has been said in regard Ito the difficulties which the newspapers are up against. Every one of us has encountered such difficulties. I have had to contend *with difficulties in my business, and I think that every man in this House has had to do the same. But we have had ito adjust our business to changed conditions, and I see no Teason why an exception should be made of newspapers at the present time. I do not think that the amendment should carry.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Certain letters and other mailable matter to be free of postage.
Martin Burrell: I move that section 4
be amended by substituting for the new section 75 as printed in the Bill the following :
75. All letters and other mailable matter sent, at the seat of government, by the Governor General, by any minister, by any department of the Government, by the office of the Auditor General, or by the Librarians of Parliament, shall be free of Canada postage under such regulations as are from time to time made in that respect by the Governor in Council; and the provisions of any other statute inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or conferring on any person or body greater powers of sending or having sent mailable matter free of postage than are conferred by this Act, shall be hereafter construed as conferring on such person or body no other or greater privileges than are conferred by this Act upon the persons and departments hereinbefore named.
Some bodies, like the Railway Commission, Civil Service Commission and Soldiers' Settlement Board have been given special powers with regard to the franking

privilege greater than are given under this section. As the section read they would have had greater franking privileges given them than are given by this Bill. This really means that boards and commissions which have been given the statutory authority to use the franking privilege shall have no greater powers than are conferred by this Act.


William Stevens Fielding: Why not set them forth as you do the others?


Martin Burrell: This was gone into by the Parliamentary Counsel and he has given it a great deal of thought.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a mysterious thing. The ordinary wayfaring man will not know who is entitled to the franking privilege. I think we ought to know. I do not see why each of these departments should not be mentioned. Why should not the public know who has the franking privilege?


Martin Burrell: I do not know that there will be any disadvantage in it and there may be some advantage. Of course they are all given this privilege by statute.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot see why one department is mentioned and the other is not. I cannot understand the logic of it.


John Allister Currie: Is there any department struck off that has the franking privilege?


Martin Burrell: No.


John Allister Currie: This will not make any change in any department?


Martin Burrell: No, it leaves those who by statute enjoy the franking privilege in the same position.


John Allister Currie: The Railway Commission now has the franking privilege and right here I want to register an objection. The Railway Commission publishes a lot of schedules from time to time and it is most difficult to keep track of those schedules. With this privilege which you give them the Railway Commission should publish all their schedules in the Canada Gazette. Great difficulty is experienced by shippers in getting railway schedules. Having the franking privilege the commission should see that the schedules are sent to All shippers. Unless you send for a schedule you do not know what the rate is and you usually have to wait for a month to get it.


Jacques Bureau: Will the Civil Service Commission be included?


Martin Burrell: If it has the statutory authority, and I imagine it has.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should there be any doubt about it? Why should not any man taking this up know who has the franking privilege and who has not?
Mr. BURRELLi: Section 75 of the old Act provides that:
All letters and all other mailable matter addressed to or sent by the Governor General shall be free of Canada postage under such regulations-
And so on. This clause as it reads now is:
All letters and other mailable matter sent by the Governor General or by any minister or department of the Government-
And so on. Neither the previous Act nor this Act deals with departments. This includes the departments of the Government and it does not mention the names of other bodies that have the franking privilege because that privilege is granted to them by special statute. It only refers to other bodies incidentally and says that if the provisions of any other statute are inconsistent with this Act they will not get any greater privileges than they enjoy under this Act. The Soldiers' Settlement Board, for instance, had by statute been given franking privileges which applied not only to sending stuff out but bringing stuff in. This says that matter $hall not come into the department free whereas the statute says that it shall be sent out and shall come in. We say they shall be given no greater powers than are given to the department. They are only referred to incidentally.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it not patent to the minister how convenient it would be for any person who is examining into the question of what persons have the franking privilege to be able to have all the departments and all the persons entitled to the franking privilege named in one section. That should be done. .


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might point this out as an objection to the method suggested: If we proceeded by endeavouring to insert in this clause all the bodies who by special statute have the franking privilege and if we happened to omit one of those, that one will continue to have the greater privilege that it now has; that is, the privilege of not only sending out this material under its frank but of having come free everything that is addressed to it. The purpose of referring to other bodies who have by special statute this privilege is simply to cut down that greater privilege which under the statute they have as the franking privilege

heretofore dealt with in the Post Office Act is being cut down under this section. We might to-day try to cover any bodies that have it but supposing that to-morrow a new commission is created and granted the franking privilege, under the statute that creates it we will have to begin over again. We run the risk that if we should overlook anybody having the statutory franking privilege that body will go on having the double privilege of receiving as well as sending out this mail matter free.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should we overlook them? Surely the Post Office authorities can make a list of the persons who are now entitled to the franking privilege. Why should we pass this on the assumption that we do not know who they are?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
William Stevens Fielding: Why hot?


Jacques Bureau: We would have to amend fit under ithe present section according to what the minister says. But in this propoised section we say:
-and the provisions of any other statute inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or conferring any greater powers of sending or having sent mailable matter free of postage than are conferred by this Act, are hereby repealed.
.. That would nolt apply to any future Statutes.


Mr. GURRIE:: 
Jacques Bureau: Makes a bigger charge.


John Allister Currie: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: Do I understand that the privilege heretofore enjoyed by people outside, of .sending mailable matter to a Government department .is .abolished? Would that mean, 'tor instance, 'thalt the farmers of Canada could not icommunfioate with the Department of Agriculture?
2	a.m. Mr. BURRELL: Not without paying postage.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They will have Ito pay 'postage? That is a Teal hardship.


John Flaws Reid: Why?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It has been understood that iafl.1 'the litofoirmaltfion that wais supplied to t'he 'farming community would be supplied free of charge.


Martin Burrell: fit is supplied free of charge.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see no reason in the world why this privilege should be done away with.


Martin Burrell: He will have to pay the ordinary rate of .postage when he writes .asking for information. If he writes, -tor instance, for a bulletin or something that is of value ito connection with farming, it will cost him three cents ito make that .application. There hais been on enormous mass of stuff earning italto 'the department quite unnecessarily. Such information .as the ordinary man wiamits he would not object to paying three cents for. He will .get hie

bulletins free, but he is asked Do pay postage uipon hji's leDtaiis. My hon. friend can understand Dhia't if the door were opened unduly you might as well throw open the whole business and let everybody in.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think the Department of Agriculture from this date on should cease to boast of the service it is rendering to the farming community.


Martin Burrell: It renders service free.


William Stevens Fielding: On matter that is going out.	-


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is not a privilege to the farmer, that is a privilege to the Government to enable them to communicate with the farmer.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I wish to ask the minister if the franking privilege is cut off from the member who, when he is at home during a recess., wishes to write to a minister at Ottawa.


Morley Currie: Sure.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Just wait a minute, I want the say-so of the minister, not of the hon. member for North Sirncoe. Could a member write on official business to a minister or to any of the departments as he heretofore has had the right to do without postage? Is that franking privilege cut off, and if so I have a word or two to say about it.


Martin Burrell: Yes, I understand it is cut off by the provisions of this Bill. Of course, a member does not have the franking privilege unless he is in Ottawa during the session. Nobody under the Bill could write to a minister, or write to a department, without paying postage. I .suppose it might be a little difficult to say that members .should not have the franking privilege outside of Ottawa as far as regards letters sent to the department,


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is to say that if the minister-


Martin Burrell: The minister would have to stamp his letter too.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is to say, this peculiar anomaly is created-that a minister of the Crown, desiring to avail himself of the .services of a member of Parliament in a constituency, when writing a letter to that member can frank it, but the member who, for the benefit of the minister,, runs about his constituency, goes to a lot of trouble and-because I apprehend soon that stationery will be cut off if this thing

goes.	on-uses	his own stationery,
his own envelopes and paper, when replying (action taken by him to oblige the country and the minister), will have to put hie hand in his pocket and pay the necessary postage, to the extent which may be involved in .sending a large number of papers. The minister's request may involve the sending of a large number of books; it may even involve sending a large number of records that are in the custody of the member and that would be of great value to the Government. Fifty cents or a dollar's worth of postage may be the result of the request, whereas the minister at Ottawa is not touched by this provision, as I understand it, when sending out letters on official business. But the poor member, who has to do the drudging work to oblige the minister, is forced to pay (postage. I am not making an argument in a pecuniary sense, but I think it is holding a member of Parliament too cheap to take away the privilege he has heretofore enjoyed. I think it is belittling to the average member from a country constituency, who may have many vicissitudes that ministers do not know about, to put him in the position of cutting off something that has been highly valuable t.o his constituents, and that has not cost' the Government of this country anything. Actually the Government, which to-night in a Bill has taken, care of the large newspapers so as to cut down the small portion of cost that they have to pay, is willing to reduce members to the position of not being worthy of the continuance of the privilege which has been enjoyed by members from time immemorial in all British Parliaments, and has cut that privilege off without good reason. I do not appreciate that, nor do I appreciate what else is in this Bill. Why should a member who has had the privilege of franking be compelled to have his full signature placed upon the envelope? Why should he be compelled if he makes a mistake to pay a penalty of $300? This Bill carries with it an insult to the members of this House. It carries with it the assumption that hon. members are not going to be honourable members but are going to take a petty advantage of the Government; are going to steal a postage stamp or do something contrary to the provisions of what I would call this autocratic belittling and altogether unworthy Bill brought in under the pretense of raising money. But under this same Bill the big newspaper interests have had a benefit involving hun-

dreds of thousands of dollars handed out to them by the reduction of the rate of postage. I am getting pretty nearly tired of that sort of thing in this House and it is about time somebody spoke out plainly.


William Stevens Fielding: I am quite sure that the minister's intentions in this matter are excellent, but I think he is trying to do too much. I really do not think there is any need of this legislation respecting the franking privilege. All privileges of that character are liable at times to be abused, but if some particular forms of the privilege have been abused the minister can put some check upon it. While I do not agree with the very strong language used by my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy)-because I am always very moderate in my expressions-in substance I think his grievance is well stated, and I strongly urge the minister'not to pass this legislation.


Martin Burrell: I am aware that a subject of this kind involves some difficulty and raises, perhaps, some misapprehensions. I do not think it was in the mind of the Postmaster-General-certainly it was not in the mind of the Government-to cast any slur on members. The provision was really designed to protect members against others, because there is no use in disguising the fact that the franking privilege has been abused in this country as it has been in the Old Country, where radical measures have been taken to check the abuse. Where a man has had the franking privilege, his friends and his friends' friends have come in by the dozen to frank all sorts of correspondence.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the minister allege that members of this House have been guilty of such offences?


Martin Burrell: I think that practically every one of us has been more or less guilty of these things..


Mr.   BUBEAU@: Not guilty.


Martin Burrell: I gave an instance the
other day where hundreds of pounds of mail were put in with the frank of Sir Hector Langevin.


Mr.   BUBEAU@: That was an old Tory
regime.


Martin Burrell: Well, I think nobody is free from it. However, as there seems to be some controversy about the matter, and as it might be well that the department should have an opportunity of giving it further consideration, we will let it stand for the present.	.


William Foster Cockshutt: May I ask the minister whether he thinks it is wise to allow members to use a facsimile of their signature? Because there is where the danger comes in, to a far greater extent than where a man initials the envelope. His initials are a well known mark at the post office here. If we get facsimile signatures printed in the form of a rubber stamp they might fall into the hand's of somebody over night and the very abuse that the minister is trying to prevent would be magnified a thousand-fold. I have been here for nearly four months this year and I have not been asked to frank a single letter for anybody, outside of my own public correspondence. I do not think that the privilege is abused by the members. I agree a great deal with what my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) has said. Moreover, the man who would forge a member's initials or use them wrongfully would do the same with the whole signature. I cannot see that the department is gaining anything by requiring- that the .full signature be used. In fact,.it is more or less of a reflection upon the honour of members, a suggestion that they are going to take advantage of the department in that way. We are all anxious to see the department put on a paying basis, but I do think this is cheeseparing of a very poor class indeed. When a member is doing business for his constituents and doing it free of chaTge,- as he always does, I believe,- to ask him to pay postage upon the correspondence involved is. certainly not in line with good government and not in line with the member doing what he should do for his constituents. I hope that the minister, in reconsidering the Bill, will re-mould it in such a way that, it will be more satisfactory. If he does, the country will lose very little, -indeed, may gain a great deal. I hope the amendments that have been suggested will be incorporated in the Bill before it is adopted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It seems to me that
these words in the Bill are far too narrow:
Provided that such letters relate wholly to the affairs of such member of the Senate or of the House of Commons of Canada.
If I sit down and write to a friend concerning matters not personal ito myself at all, I would not have the privilege of franking that letter. Surely that is not the intention.


Mr.   BUBEAU@: You will have to show your letter to the censor.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Suppose I write a
letter to a friend not in a personal way, but, let us say, a letter of sympathy. Am I not to have the right to frank that letter while the House is sitting?


John Allister Currie: I think that this proposed amendment arises largely through the fact that Ottawa (tailors have been in the habit of sending circulars to members, and that was offensive to officials in the post office; (they do no-t want to distribute these letters to the members. That is something that should not be allowed, the sending of these circulars.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Circulars? Or duns?


John Allister Currie: Why should we lose the
franking privilege because (tailors send circulars to us? So far as the franking privilege is concerned, my frank has been used without my authority. I do not think that there is a member who has been here for some years whose frank in the- old days was not sometimes used without his authority. But the department is watchful and does not allow- these things to go through. The fact Ithat someone happens to say: " Well, I will put this member's frank on two or three letters and shove them into the post office," should not cause the member in question (to lose his franking privilege. Then, the privilege of franking with the stamp is a very important one. I know a member who has to answer anywhere from thirty to one hundred letters a day. He dictates the letters to a stenographer; she writes them out and brings them to him; he reads them and signs them and the rest of the operation is carried out by (the stenographer; idle seals the envelopes and franks them with the rubber stamp. Are we going to ask that man to sit down and write his name on every envelope? No argument has been brought forward in this House to-night or before that convinces me that there is any necessity for a change in the Act in that regard. If these clauses are inserted, they are inserted because some officials of the Post Office Department are narrowing themselves down, and they want to soak the members. There are ways by which the members can get even with the Post Office officials if that be necessary. Why should the aspersion contained in this clause be cast upon members? This clause goes out to the public; it has been discussed here; it has been discussed before, ^nd the impression that the public from one end of the country to the other has received from this, is that members are sending bags of potatoes and their

underclothing and their laundi'y home to be washed; that there is nothing around the House that they are not picking up, such as red hot stoves and everything else, and shipping them off by mail.


Jacques Bureau: What about the Mace?


John Allister Currie: What can you expect but that public men will rise in their places throughout the country and cast insults at members of this House when clauses like this are inserted in a Bill casting an aspersion on members? These amendments are an insult to members, and this is all being done under the guise of economy. How much economy will it achieve? It will achieve very little economy, and it is putting the members and everybody else to a great deal of trouble. I can remember the time when seed peas, seed grain and all that sort of thing were shipped out to the West under a frank, but those days are past. Ministers, from time to time, have narrowed down those privileges, and I think every hon. member at present in the House can hold up his hands, and say that he has not been guilty of any such action as implied. The least said about these clauses, the better; we should not hear any more about them. Let the old clauses stand, and let the thing be settled once and for all. A member must have his frank. The time has come when a member must send out the eloquent speeches of the ministers. Bundles of these are being sent to the rooms of members; in fact, this morning I saw about 1,000 of them in my room for me to send out. Long ago ministers used to have them mailed themselves, but now the custom is to send 1,000 to each member and he has to get a stenographer to place them in envelopes. It takes a member a long time to put his signature on these envelopes. We must have a little common sense and stop trying to make big people out of ourselves by trying to cut off the privileges we have. The privileges of members of Parliament are the dearest and most precious things we have. I heard only a few weeks ago of a judge on the bench saying that the privileges of a member or senator were nowhere. That is altogether wrong. This is the highest court in the realm. No judge on the Supreme Court bench of Canada has the authority, power or privilege of a member of Parliament, because this is the first court of the whole realm. Why, then, should we be casting aspersions at ourselves or at any member? Let us have our quarrels and political fights in this House; but as regards the privileges, rights and honour of members of Parliament, both sides

of this House should stand together on the issue.	.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would suggest to the minister that he should drop the clause and finish the Bill, because every hon. member is entirely opposed to this clause.


Martin Burrell: I think the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) raised the point that a member could not frank his-own mail unless it related to public affairs. That is not so. He can frank mail relating to any of his affairs. The provision contained in this Bill is that you cannot mail other people's letters. The old section read "letters sent by members," and under that section, as I read it, a member could gather in a dozen or more letters from his friends, and he was perfectly entitled to frank them. We are not casting aspersions. An hon. member can frank all his private correspondence.
iMr. BUREAU: How are you going to con-' trol that?


John Allister Currie: You must not frank your wife's letters.


Martin Burrell: I do not think there will be any trouble -about that. As regards the signature, my understanding is that the facsimile would apply only to all mailable matter, except letters. My hon. friend suggests that I should do away with the whole clause. The matter would be different if this were my own Bill; but it is the Bill of a responsible minister, a Bill that has been considered by the -Government, and it would not be wise nor proper for me to wipe out this clause and let the Bill go through. I would prefer to move that the committee rise and report progress.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: We have sat here until half-past two o'clock in- the morning to consider a Bill that is not particularly pressing, and it seems to me as though there is a motive in sitting so long, that these things should slip through. I object decidedly to letting these clauses go through either now or at any other time. If this matter comes up again, we may not be here to oppose it, and I would support the request that my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) has made to the minister, having in view the temper of the House and the general expression of opinion in regard to the matter. While it is true that this is not the minister's Bill -and that it is the Bill of the Postmaster General, who happens to be in the -Senate, the criticism would be just the same if the Postmaster General were here, and there is nothing personal in 239
the criticism. The objection is to the Bill, not to the hon. gentleman who has charge of it.
Mr. -CURRIE:	Strike the clause out.


Martin Burrell: I will move then that
clause 76, which we are now dealing with-


William Stevens Fielding: Strike out the whole
clause 4.


Martin Burrell: The committee should
understand that if we repeal the whole clause, we are repealing not only the part of the clause which affects members, but a portion of a clause which I understand the committee has already passed.
Mr. McMAiSTER: We never passed clause 4.


Martin Burrell: We would be striking
out all that part that deals with the sending of -all the mass of material into the various departments that has heretofore been sent -free.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Quite rightly so. Does the minister believe for one minute that people outside in the country will communicate with his department when they have no public business to transact?
-Mr. BURRELL : We will drop the whole of clause 4 and close the Bill as it stands. In doing so, I am sure the committee will understand the rather difficult position I am placed in, acting, as I am, for another minister who has carefully considered the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: We are not blaming the minister.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. minister can say that he yielded to "force majeure."


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister may explain that if the Postmaster General had sat in this House, the Bill would have met with the same treatment.
-Mr. DOHERTY:	I think it would be
going too far to wipe out clause 4 in its entirety. I suppose hon. gentlemen would not like that we should, in an endeavour to preserve their privileges, take away one from them. Section 79 of the Post Office Act reads:
-Members of either the Senate or the House of Commons may, during the recess of Parliament, send by mail, free of Canada postage, all papers printed by order of either House-[DOT]


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a great privilege, but I do not care that -we should have it.
-Mr. DOHERTY: Then it goes on to grant the same privilege to members of the legis-



lature of any one of the provinces of Canada. They may-*
-in like manner send by mail free of Canada postage, all papers printed by order of such legislature.
So if we drop section 79 as contained in section 4 we will 'be maintaining the privilege to members of the legislatures of all the provinces.


Jacques Bureau: Let them have it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there is a distinction to be made between the members of the legislatures with regard to their papers and the members of this House. The Dominion of Canada does the post office business and why should we do it gratuitiously for the benefit of the provinces?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend desires to repeal that privilege he had better bring in a specific clause and not mix it up with the privileges of the House of Commons at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 79 as it stands in this Bill is purely and simply repealing that privilege to the members of the legislatures.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I just say that this objection to carrying free the official papers printed by the legislatures, while you are carrying free 2,500 issues of a local paper from week to week, is simply straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of the absolute principle to which the hon. member committed himself, I should think he would welcome our action in asking in at least one instance for pay for the service rendered.


Martin Burrell: This has been a difficult matter for me as acting minister in charge of this Bill. I have taken a good deal of responsibility in deference to the wishes of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House in wiping out all the provisions of the Bill which limit the privileges of members of this House. Having gone that far, I think that part of the Bill which does not refer to the privileges of members of this House should be left in. -So, if I may be allowed to amend my proposal, I beg to move:
To amend dlause 4 by striking out the words "seventy-five" and "seventy-six" in the first line of the said clause by substituting the word, "is" for the word "are" at the beginning of the third line of t'he said clause, and by striking out the new sections 75 and 76.	'


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the Chairman read the clause as it will appear if the motion is agreed to?


Georges Henri Boivin: If the motion is agreed to clause 4 of the Bill will read as follows:
4. Sections seventy-nine and eighty-one of the said Act are repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
"79. Members of either the Senate or the House of Commons may, during the recess of Parliament, send by mail, free of Canada postage, all papers printed by order of either House."


William Stevens Fielding: Why not, repeal the
words relating to the Provincial Legislatures without any reference to the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons at .all?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it has been looked upon in this House a.s a desirable thing that we should not make amendments by saying "We strike out of such and such a section such and such words," because a man reading the statute in the future would have to go back to the original Act to find out what .the original section contained. As it is now, he will know on the face of this Act all that section 79 contains.
Mr. BEiLANlD: What does section 81 of the Post Office Act.refer to?


Martin Burrell: It refers to petitions and addresses to the Legislatures.
Amendment, clause as amended, and title, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 3.24 a.m. Friday.
Friday, June 18, 1920.